ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

CABINET OFFICE

The Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—

Offshoring Services

Mary Glindon: What his policy is on offshoring of services which have been contracted out by the Government.

Francis Maude: Our policy on offshoring is unchanged from that pursued by the previous Government. Our procurement policy is to award contracts on the basis of value for money, which means the optimum combination of costs and quality.

Mary Glindon: Cabinet Office document ISSC2 states that back-office jobs and functions in the Departments for Work and Pensions and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be privatised and offshored in a joint venture with the Government and Steria UK. Which functions and jobs will be offshored and to where? Does he agree that any threat to offshore jobs, particularly those handling sensitive personal data, should be given urgent attention by the Government?

Francis Maude: Concerns about data security are taken very seriously, and certainly inform our approach to offshoring. But as I say, the approach that we take to offshoring is exactly the same as that followed by the previous Government. The hon. Lady may know that the shared business services joint venture, also with Steria, which was set up by the last Government, has some elements that are offshored, and the same will be the case with this joint venture.

Alan Beith: Will my right hon. Friend encourage contractors to recognise that where there is a very cost-effective office in a rural community providing shared services, such as the DEFRA office in Alnwick, retaining jobs there makes sense?

Francis Maude: I know my right hon. Friend’s concern about that office and I know that Steria and the management of the shared services centre will be looking at that very carefully. They will want to make sure that the service is provided at an improved quality—the
	quality has not been optimal up to now—and at a much lower cost. There will be many different ways of doing that, but I know that they will want to look very carefully at the service provided by their colleagues at Alnwick.

Civil Service (Commercial Skills)

David Rutley: What steps he is taking to improve commercial skills in the civil service.

Mark Menzies: What steps he is taking to improve commercial skills in the civil service.

Andrew Selous: What steps he is taking to improve commercial skills in the civil service.

David Mowat: What steps he is taking to improve commercial skills in the civil service.

Francis Maude: The Government have been working for the past three years to drive up the level of commercial skills across central Government. There is still a long way to go, given the shortcomings of where we started. The need to press ahead with redoubled speed was highlighted in our recent cross-Government review of contracts. We are creating the Crown Commercial Service, which will come online later this year.

David Rutley: I welcome the important steps that my right hon. Friend is taking to improve these skills. I believe that more needs to be done to continue to upgrade skills in commercial areas, particularly relating to project management and commissioning. Is he satisfied that sufficient civil servants will be going through the new commissioning agency really to make a difference to the skills base in Whitehall and beyond?

Francis Maude: I recently attended the one-year-on event of the new Commissioning Academy, which we set up a year ago. It has achieved a good deal. During the next 18 months, we want 1,500 senior public sector commissioners to have participated in the academy. It is part of a wider programme to improve commercial skills not only in Whitehall but right across the public sector.

Mark Menzies: What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the work of the Crown representatives in driving value for money for taxpayers through procurement reform?

Francis Maude: Our Crown representatives, who come predominantly from the private sector with a huge amount of commercial experience, have helped us to generate significant efficiencies. We buy better if we act as a single customer in Government, to maximise our buying power and improve our performance as a customer. We are renegotiating contracts with a number of suppliers, and by centrally renegotiating we have saved the taxpayer £800 million in each of the financial years during this Parliament.

Andrew Selous: When does my right hon. Friend expect that all those in charge of major Government IT contracts will have gone through the programme at Oxford Said business school, and is he satisfied that that is the very best place to send these people?

Francis Maude: I am absolutely satisfied with the Major Projects Leadership Academy, which was set up to address what was identified by everybody as a major deficiency in Government and is now approaching its second anniversary. There is a requirement for all major project leaders to be alumni of the academy by the end of 2015, and all of them will have at least started training by the end of the current year. We started with a real deficiency of skills and experience, but we are building those with civil servants, which has been very much welcomed.

David Mowat: Just before Christmas, the cross-Government review of major projects identified a number of serious weaknesses in the way contracts with Serco and G4S had been administered. Will the Minister confirm that the review’s conclusions will be implemented in full? Will he also consider requiring senior civil servants to spend three years in a commercial environment before becoming permanent secretaries?

Francis Maude: I can confirm that we have accepted the recommendations, and Departments are producing their plans for implementing them imminently. With regard to the requirement for senior civil servants to get commercial and operational experience, we have already set out that someone looking to be appointed as permanent secretary of a delivery Department must be able to show at least two years of commercial or operational experience before being considered.

Barry Sheerman: May I push the Minister on that? Is it not a bit wishy-washy to refer to “commercial” skills? I am co-chair of the all-party management group. What we want across the civil service are pure management skills. Moreover, we want Ministers with some ability to manage a Department. The fact is that most of the Ministers who appeared before me when I chaired a Select Committee could not manage the proverbial in a brewery.

Francis Maude: The hon. Gentleman may have more experience of the latter activity than I do, but the truth is that Ministers are not actually required to manage Departments; that responsibility sits very clearly with the civil service leadership. I think that they would be the first to accept that he makes a valid point. We have a deficiency in leadership and management skills as well as in commercial skills, and we need to address that. Concerns about the quality of the leadership and management of change come up consistently in the civil service staff survey, and as great organisations are always changing, we need to rectify that deficiency.

Jonathan Ashworth: Of course we agree that we want greater commercial skills, and indeed management skills, in the civil service, but with the fiasco over the west coast main line, botched contracts over rural broadband roll-out and the lamentable implementation of the universal credit, with the Minister squabbling publicly with the Secretary of State for
	Work and Pensions, when will Ministers, rather than blaming officials, take some responsibility for their own shambles?

Francis Maude: On that last point, the hon. Gentleman will know that it was my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who spotted that things were not right with the implementation of the universal credit and commissioned the review that disclosed the problems to the Department for the first time, as the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee report makes absolutely clear. Far from evading responsibility, it was my right hon. Friend who spotted the problems and set to work solving them.

Bernard Jenkin: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge the widespread appreciation of his personal commitment to improving skills in the civil service, which is truly commendable? Will he also take this opportunity to welcome the fact that the Public Administration Committee has just announced a new inquiry into skills in the civil service, and will he encourage people to send us as much evidence as possible?

Francis Maude: I absolutely welcome the inquiry that my hon. Friend is leading and will certainly encourage a lot of evidence to be given. We have to be open about the problems that exist. Otherwise, there is no chance whatsoever of solving them. The first stage in finding solutions is being honest about the problems.

Youth Services

Julie Hilling: What steps he is taking to maintain the level of youth services provision.

Sarah Champion: What steps he is taking to maintain the level of youth services provision.

Nick Hurd: We are strong believers in the value of high-quality youth services. We will shortly publish a report on what local authorities are doing to comply with their statutory duty, along with our plans to support those who want to deliver high-quality services in an innovative way.

Julie Hilling: As the Minister says, local authorities have a duty to secure sufficient educational leisure-time activity for the improvement of well-being and the personal and social development of young people, but the average cut to youth services has been 27%, with some local authorities cutting their youth service budgets completely. What measures is he taking to ensure that local authorities meet their statutory responsibilities, and how is he measuring the impact of the cuts on the well-being of young people?

Nick Hurd: The statutory duty exists. We are concerned about the vulnerability of youth services, as is the hon. Lady. It is a mixed picture: boroughs such as the London borough of Hillingdon in my constituency, for example, are investing more in youth services now because they fixed the roof when the sun was shining, but there are cuts. We are finding out an accurate picture of what is
	happening, because we did not have one, and we will shortly publish the offer we can make to local authorities that want to commission services in an innovative way.

Sarah Champion: Following on from that last answer, does the Minister agree that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to provide a fair start to all young people in Rotherham, given the £970,000 cuts to the youth service with which the council is now forced to deal?

Nick Hurd: I fully accept that there are very challenging pressures on local authorities as a result of the cuts. Each of them is dealing with the cuts in different ways. What we sitting in the centre can do is map what is happening, help local authorities by signposting other sources of funding, help them to look at examples of good innovative practice around the country and help them if they are really committed to commissioning high-quality services for young people. We know the value of those services, and we are absolutely committed to them.

Tim Loughton: Will the Minister be mindful of the Youth Commission report on the role of youth workers in schools, which I chaired? It highlighted the value of qualified and empathetic youth workers supporting young people in school settings on healthy living and engagement issues. Will he urge colleagues in the Department for Education to make sure that Ofsted take that into account in their inspections?

Nick Hurd: I am certainly very happy to raise that with colleagues in the Department for Education. Over the years, I have developed a deep admiration for the work of youth workers, who can have an extraordinary impact on young people. I will therefore raise that point with other Departments.

Tony Baldry: These questions tend to ignore the enormous amount of voluntary work already done by youth organisations in our constituencies—people helping young homelessness projects, street pastors, sea cadets, air cadets, Army cadets, scouts and guides. Huge numbers of youth organisations are run or assisted by adult volunteers, and they do not need the intervention of the state to thrive and prosper.

Nick Hurd: I fully agree with my right hon. Friend’s points. A huge number of organisations seek to help and develop young people. Part of the challenge for us is to try to connect them with local authorities, which have a statutory duty, to see whether services at local level can be joined up more effectively for the benefit of young people in the area.

Gregory Campbell: Will the Minister hold discussions with the relevant Ministers in the devolved legislatures to ensure that best practice in youth service provision right across the United Kingdom is replicated to the benefit of young people throughout the UK?

Nick Hurd: Such provision is a devolved matter, but we are having active conversations with devolved Administrations, specifically about the opportunity to develop the National Citizen Service in other areas. I am absolutely delighted that we have been able to run
	very successful pilots in Northern Ireland, and we are in active conversations with other Administrations to follow that lead.

Julian Brazier: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the remarkable start that the National Citizen Service has made and on all that is happening. May I urge him to meet the Marine Society to talk about what sea cadets and other parts of its very successful existing portfolio can deliver for it?

Nick Hurd: I would be delighted to have such a conversation. We have had very constructive conversations so far with the cadets about links that could be made with the National Citizen Service. As we look to expand it very ambitiously, we are obviously open to conversations with any organisations that can help.

Lisa Nandy: The Minister has previously said that youth services are too easy a target for cuts, and he was right. In fact, his Government have squeezed councils so hard that they have presided over £300 million- worth of cuts to youth services, but at the same time they have squandered £241 million on free school places in areas where they are not needed. Ministers’ pet projects or young people—will he tell the House which he thinks are more important?

Nick Hurd: The hon. Lady totally ignores the reason why there are cuts in the system, which is to get control of the deficit that we inherited. We passionately believe in the value of youth services for young people. That is why we have developed the National Citizen Service, which has an evidence base to support the value that it gives to young people. As I have said, we are now prepared to work with local authorities to see how they can commission, in an innovative way, really effective youth services in their area.

Social Finance

Graham Allen: What progress he has made on developing social finance.

Nick Hurd: Britain is proud to lead the world in developing the emerging market of social investment. Big Society Capital has already committed £140 million, and the number of social impact bonds has risen sharply. Grants are flowing to help social entrepreneurs to become more investment-ready, and a new tax relief will go live in April.

Graham Allen: I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	Having properly evidenced early-intervention programmes is the biggest known deficit reduction programme. In order for such programmes to start up, we need effective social finance. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what more his Department and, above all, Big Society Capital can do to maximise that possibility?

Nick Hurd: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his leadership in setting up the Early Intervention Foundation and on the work that it published today on domestic violence. He is entirely right that part of the value of social investment is its ability to create space to finance
	early intervention. That is where a lot of the social impact bonds that I mentioned are focused. I know from my conversations with Big Society Capital that it is very interested in engaging with What Works centres, including the Early Intervention Foundation. Following the hon. Gentleman’s question, I will write to the chief executive, asking him to update me on his engagement with the Early Intervention Foundation and other What Works centres.

Andrew Bridgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that the social impact of the delivery of public services should be taken account of during the procurement process, as well as the purely economic impact?

Nick Hurd: Yes, the Government agree with that. That is why we put the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 on the statute book. Later this month, we will publish a one-year-on review of that Act, because it matters to us. We are keen for commissioners—the people who spend public money—to think intelligently about how money can be stretched as far as possible.

Privatised Shared Services

Jessica Morden: What assessment he has made of the efficacy of privatised shared services across central Government Departments.

Francis Maude: The Government’s first priority is to drive down costs for the taxpayer and cut the massive budget deficit that we inherited. There has been cross-party agreement on the need for shared services for the past decade, but very little had been achieved until over the past 12 months. That is why I am pleased that last year we launched a joint venture with Steria that will save taxpayers at least £400 million and create a new, dynamic UK business services company.

Jessica Morden: The announcement in December that the Ministry of Justice’s shared service centre in Newport could be privatised has caused huge fears and uncertainty among the work force, who fear that their jobs will be outsourced and potentially offshored, which could happen under this model. Given the Prime Minister’s commitment to onshoring jobs last week, will the Cabinet Office reassure the workers in Newport that the plans will be shelved?

Francis Maude: We will certainly not shelve any options that could bring improved services and cut the cost to the taxpayer. I am aware of the uncertainty. That will be resolved as soon as possible so that people know where the future lies. To give a bit of reassurance, I remind the hon. Lady that the first shared service centre in Swansea, which has been fully outsourced rather than being a joint venture, is taking on more staff.

National Citizen Service

Mark Pawsey: What plans he has for the National Citizen Service in 2014.

Nick Hurd: A new, independent organisation called the NCS Trust has been established to lead the programme in 2014. We are delighted that more than 70,000 young people have had this hugely positive experience since 2011. The trust will build on that success. In 2014, more young people than ever will have the opportunity to take part in the National Citizen Service.

Mark Pawsey: In September last year, I joined 40 young people on Big Challenge Sunday. Guided by the park ranger, Trevor Hoyte, they painted fences and picked litter in Rugby’s Caldecott park. That was appreciated by local people and the young people gained valuable life skills. Should not Members from across the House encourage more people to take part in the National Citizen Service?

Nick Hurd: Yes, we should. I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the National Citizen Service. The NCS has a twin value: it gives young people the chance to do something in their community and, as he said, it helps them to develop confidence and skills that will make them more employable. That is why we are so ambitious for it and why there is cross-party support for it, led by the Leader of the Opposition.

Topical Questions

Karen Lumley: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Francis Maude: My responsibilities are for the public sector Efficiency and Reform Group, civil service issues, the industrial relations strategy in the public sector, Government transparency, civil contingency, civil society and cyber-security. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. There is still rather a lot of noise in the House. What is required is an air of respectful expectation for Karen Lumley.

Karen Lumley: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	Does my right hon. Friend the Minister share my concern at the reports that a trade union is threatening to use so-called leverage tactics against our NHS staff? Can he confirm that those allegations fall within the scope of our review of trade union activities?

Francis Maude: I share my hon. Friend’s concerns at those suggestions. It is appalling that hard-working staff in our NHS should be subjected to the threat of such bullying and intimidation. I can confirm that the review that we are establishing will be fully empowered to investigate those suggestions.

Michael Dugher: In light of the newly released Cabinet papers about the 1984 miners’ strike, and given the continued sense of injustice that prevails across the coalfields, will the Minister agree to publish all the documents and the communication between the then Government and the police at the time of the strike; to a full investigation into the events surrounding Orgreave ahead of the 30th anniversary; and to make a formal apology for the actions of the then Government?
	Does he agree that it is only through full transparency and reconciliation that we will finally see justice for the coalfields?

Francis Maude: The documents will be released in the usual way under the law that was passed under the last Government. I was representing a coal mining constituency during the miners’ strike and saw at first hand the violence, intimidation and divided communities in a dispute that took place without a proper national ballot being held. The hon. Gentleman asks for an apology—no.

Andrew Percy: As well as reversing the previous Labour council’s cuts to youth services and taking trade union money and putting it into apprenticeships, North Lincolnshire’s Conservative council has adopted dynamic purchasing systems such as e-tendering to support local businesses. Are the Government evaluating the benefit of such systems to the wider public sector? If so, will the Minister look at the North Lincolnshire examples?

Francis Maude: There is huge scope for councils to give more business to smaller businesses, and my hon. Friend gives a good example that many more local authorities should copy.

Bridget Phillipson: Sunderland has a great record on technology start-ups, but these small companies still find it difficult to compete and bid for Government work. What more can the Minister do across Government to support this growing industry in the north-east?

Francis Maude: We can do more, and we are already doing much more than was previously the case. The amount of Government business going to small businesses, both directly and indirectly, has risen to nearly 20%. I am afraid that the last Government were not even measuring how much went to smaller businesses. There is much more that we can do. We have streamlined the procurement processes, which previously seemed almost deliberately to exclude small businesses from being able to bid. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: The Minister has ploughed on, to his credit, but it has been difficult for him to be heard. His words should be heard, and I hope that there will be some courtesy from Members.

Laura Sandys: I welcome the Minister’s offering IT procurement to small and medium-sized enterprises through the G-Cloud. Is he aware of a local constituency company called The Bunker secure hostings, which offers data for SMEs to access G-Gloud?

Francis Maude: I am glad that G-Cloud, which we set up, now has 800 suppliers on it, two thirds of which are SMEs, and that an increasing amount of business is being awarded through it. I hope that the business in my hon. Friend’s constituency will be successful in winning business through that innovative way of enabling the purchase of IT services.

Gemma Doyle: Last week, the Information Commissioner said that there were “serious shortcomings” in the Cabinet Office’s handling of freedom of information requests and called the Department’s poor performance “particularly disappointing”. Why is the Minister setting such a bad example, given that his Department is supposed to lead on openness and transparency across Government?

Francis Maude: It will be clear to the hon. Lady that the Cabinet Office deals with some of the most complex and difficult freedom of information requests, a lot of them involving previous Government papers, for which a long consultation process has to be entered into before any decision can be made. The situation will be better in some quarters than others, but in general our record is good.

Henry Bellingham: Given that a fifth of Government procurement spend now goes to SMEs, will the Minister redouble his efforts so that these engines of growth further boost our long-term economic plan?

Francis Maude: We have made massive progress. Under the previous Government there was no attempt even to measure how much business was going to SMEs, but we are now measuring that and improving it. We have cut out a lot of the bureaucratic nonsense that often prevented small businesses from even being able to bid for business, let alone win it. The result of that, as my hon. Friend says, is that nearly one fifth of Government business goes to SMEs one way or another. It is our ambition for that to rise to 25%, and I am optimistic we can achieve that.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Chloe Smith: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 29 January.

David Cameron: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.

Chloe Smith: Figures now show that the UK economy is growing at its fastest rate since 2007, which is further proof that our plan is working. But there is a choice: stick with it, or abandon a plan that is delivering a better economic future and jobs for my constituents in Norwich North. Does the Prime Minister agree that the long-term decisions we are taking matter most for the future of Britain and our children? After all, who is an economic plan for if not the next generation?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: that should be the test of the decisions we are taking—will they secure a better future, more stability
	and more peace of mind for our children and grandchildren? Last week we saw the biggest number of new jobs in a quarter since records began, and this week we see the fastest growth in our economy for six years. There should be absolutely no complacency. The job is nowhere near complete, but if we stick to our long-term economic plan we can see our country rise and our people rise too.

Edward Miliband: All sides of the House will welcome the Government’s significant change of heart on the issue of Syrian refugees, which I raised with the Prime Minister last week, and we look forward to the Home Secretary’s statement. Now that the decision has apparently been taken, will he reassure the House that he will act with the utmost urgency, because we are talking about the most vulnerable people in refugee camps who need help now?

David Cameron: What I can assure the right hon. Gentleman is that we will act with the greatest urgency, because when it comes to Syria, we have acted with the greatest urgency throughout. We have made available £600 million, which makes us the second largest humanitarian donor. We have provided food for 188,000 people, clean water for almost a million, and medical consultations for almost a quarter of a million. As the Home Secretary will make clear, we will be coming forward with a scheme to help the most needy people in those refugee camps and offer them a home in our country. We want to make sure that we particularly help those who have been victims of sexual violence—a cause that the Foreign Secretary has rightly, on behalf of the whole country, championed across the world.

Edward Miliband: I welcome the Government’s decision to accept Syrian refugees; it is a very important cause.
	Let me turn to another subject. Can I ask the Prime Minister who, just before the election, said that
	“showing that we’re all in this together…means showing that the rich will pay their share which is why…the 50p tax rate will have to stay”? [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. A question has been asked and the answer must be heard.

David Cameron: Under this Government the richest will pay more in income tax in every year than any year when the right hon. Gentleman was in office. That is the truth. I want the richest to pay more in tax, and under this Government they are, because we are creating jobs and growth, and we are encouraging investment. What we have heard from Labour Members over the past 48 hours is that they want to attack that growth and attack those jobs; they want to attack those businesses. We now have in Britain an anti-business, anti-growth, anti-jobs party.

Edward Miliband: No, Mr Speaker; what we have is a policy with the overwhelming support of the most important people of all—the people of Britain. That is what the 50p rate is. The Prime Minister is obviously rather coy in telling us who said those words. Of course, it was him, in 2009, just before the election. He said that the 50p tax rate was a symbol of us all being in it together, and now it has gone. Can he now tell us whether he rules out cutting the top rate further to 40p?

David Cameron: The Chancellor set out yesterday exactly what our priorities are. We want to cut taxes for the lowest paid and for middle income people. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not hear the Chancellor, because like the rest of the Labour party, he was not here yesterday—they left the shadow Chancellor all on his own.
	While we are in the business of who has said interesting things in recent days—[Interruption.] Let me ask him this—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Robertson: calm yourself, man. The lion must get back in its den.

David Cameron: rose—

Hon. Members: More!

David Cameron: There is plenty more. While we are on the subject of interesting quotes, who in the last 48 hours said this:
	“do I think the level of public spending going into the crisis was a problem for Britain? No, I don’t, nor our deficit, nor our national debt”?
	In fact, he even said that in
	“in some areas we’d spend more”.
	That was the shadow Chancellor. We were talking earlier about our children. When our children in future turn to the dictionary and look up the definition of denial, it will be right there: Balls, Ed.

Edward Miliband: It is hard to remember now, but a long time ago I asked a question. The Prime Minister failed to answer it, so let us try him again and give him another go. Does he rule out—[Interruption.] The Chancellor should keep quiet for a second. Does the Prime Minister rule out giving another tax cut to the richest in society by cutting the top rate to 40p—

David Cameron: rose—

Edward Miliband: Calm down. Yes or no?

David Cameron: There is so much good news I cannot wait to get up and tell it. Our priority is to cut taxes for the lowest paid in our country. That is why we have taken 2 million people out of tax. Let us look at the reaction to the right hon. Gentleman’s 50p announcement. Businesses have said it would cost jobs, Labour Ministers whom he served alongside have queued up to say that it is economically illiterate, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that it would raise hardly any money. It has been an absolutely disastrous policy launch from a disastrous Labour economic team.

Edward Miliband: With every answer, the Prime Minister shows who he stands up for: a few at the top, not the ordinary families of Britain. That is the truth.
	It is a very simple question. I know the Prime Minister does not love answering questions at Prime Minister’s questions, but that is the point of these occasions. We are asking him a very simple question. We have a clear position. We would reverse the millionaires’ tax cut and put the top rate of tax back to 50p. I am asking him a very simple question. Does he rule out reducing the top rate to 40p—yes or no?

David Cameron: The simple answer is that I have told him our priority: tax cuts for low earners, tax cuts for middle earners, freezing the council tax, freezing the fuel duty and helping people in our country. What have we seen from him so far this year? We have seen a banking policy that the Governor of the Bank of England says would increase risk to the banking system, an employment policy that the CBI said would cost jobs, and a tax policy that business leaders said would be a risk to our recovery. There is a crisis in our country— a crisis of economic credibility for the Labour party.

Edward Miliband: The whole country will have heard; he had three opportunities to answer and he could not give us a straight answer to the question. This is a country where, after four years of this Government, people are worse off. This is a Prime Minister who has already given those at the top, millionaires, a £100,000 tax cut, and he wants to give them another one. He can only govern for the few; he can never govern for the many.

David Cameron: I will tell you who we are governing for: the 1.3 million people who got jobs under this Government; the 400,000 new businesses under this Government; the 2 million people we have taken out of tax under this Government; the people on the minimum wage who have seen their tax bills come down by two thirds under this Government. That is who we are governing for. The fact is we have more factories producing more goods, more people taking home a pay packet and more security for hard-working families. Now we can see the risks. Labour—a risk to jobs, a risk to the recovery and a risk to the future of Britain’s security.

Jeremy Browne: The severe flooding on the Somerset levels is causing acute distress to the people who live in that area. Will the Prime Minister give a commitment today both to take immediate action to try to clear the flood water from the Somerset levels as soon as possible, and to put in place a long-term plan to try to make sure that this does not happen again?

David Cameron: I can give my hon. Friend both those assurances. Cobra will be meeting again this afternoon to explore what more we can do to help the villagers in the Somerset levels. The current situation is not acceptable. I can tell him that it is not currently safe to dredge in the levels, but I can confirm that dredging will start as soon as it is practical, as soon as the waters have started to come down. The Environment Agency is pumping as much water as is possible given the capacity of the rivers around the levels, but I have ordered that further high-volume pumps from the Department for Communities and Local Government’s national reserve will be made available to increase the volume of the pumping operation as soon as there is capacity in the rivers to support that. We are urgently exploring what further help the Government can give to local residents to move around, and I rule nothing out in the days ahead to get this problem sorted.

Andy Sawford: Can I invite the Prime Minister to visit my constituency and spend a day working with a rogue employment agency
	on a zero-hours contract and being paid sometimes less than the minimum wage, so that he can get an insight into the world of work for many people on his watch?

David Cameron: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will be visiting his constituency in the next 16 months. I absolutely agree with him that it is unacceptable when people pay below the minimum wage. We want to see more enforcement and action to make sure that that does not happen. It is not acceptable, we have a minimum wage for a good reason and I want to see it properly enforced.

James Paice: Is it not the case that we have learned over successive years during the past two or three decades that a responsible economic policy to maximise tax yields is one that sets the tax rates at the rates that will yield the most? Tax rates set too high are the politics of envy and actually raise less in taxes.

David Cameron: My right hon. Friend makes a sensible point. The point of setting tax rates is to raise revenue, not to make a political point. What the Opposition want to do is make a political point because they believe in the politics of envy, not in raising money for public services. In the end the truth is this: the top 1% of taxpayers in our country are now paying 30% of the total income tax take. As I said, the richest taxpayers are actually going to be paying more in every year of this Government than when those two on the Opposition Front Bench sat in the Treasury and made such a mess of our economy.

Debbie Abrahams: More than 300,000 people are reported to be paid less than the minimum wage. I was heartened by what the Prime Minister just said, but if that is the case and he really is committed to the minimum wage, why have there been only two employers prosecuted in the past four years and half the level of investigations?

David Cameron: We have seen, I think, about 700 penalties issued for not paying the minimum wage, so we are taking enforcement action, but we need to take more enforcement action. As the Chancellor has made clear, we also want the opportunity for the minimum wage to rise. As our economy recovers, it should be possible, listening to the Low Pay Commission, to restore the value of the minimum wage. We are keen to see that happen.

Laura Sandys: I know that the Prime Minister deals in facts, and the facts are that we have more jobs in this country than ever recorded before and a growth prediction higher than anybody would have thought a year ago. Will we now consider whether the level of the minimum wage could be raised to ensure that everyone benefits from this recovery?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is extremely good news that more than 30 million people—a record number—are in work. Under this Government, the minimum wage has gone up by 10%, and our tax cut for low earners is equivalent to another 10% increase in the minimum wage, but as I have said I
	hope it will be possible to restore the real value of the minimum wage. We should listen and allow the Low Pay Commission to do its work—I do not want this issue to become a political football—but everyone agrees that as the economy recovers it should be possible to restore that value.

Sheila Gilmore: Mohammad Asghar, who lived in the UK for 40 years and has family in my constituency, has recently been convicted of blasphemy and sentenced to death in Pakistan. Mr Asghar was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia in 2010 and was treated in Edinburgh, but the judges refused to take that into account. I wrote to the Foreign Secretary yesterday, but can the Prime Minister now assure me that he and his Ministers are doing everything they can to support this man and see him returned to the UK, where he can get the treatment he needs?

David Cameron: I can certainly give the hon. Lady the assurance she asks for. I, too, am deeply concerned about this death sentence passed on Mr Mohammad Asghar. As she knows, it is our long-standing policy to oppose the death penalty in all circumstances, and the Pakistani authorities can be in no doubt about the seriousness with which we view these developments. Baroness Warsi spoke to the Chief Minister of the Punjab on Monday, our high commission in Islamabad continues to raise this case with the relevant authorities and Foreign Office officials are meeting Pakistan high commission officials in London today to discuss his and other cases. We take this extremely seriously and are making that clear at every level.

Penny Mordaunt: Portsmouth is an entrepreneurial city, delivering a drop of 25% in jobseeker’s allowance claimants over the past year. With this in mind, is the Prime Minister aware of a commercial plan put forward to the Department of Energy and Climate Change to build a number of specialist vessels designed to revolutionise and facilitate the industrialisation of the tidal energy sector? Does he agree that Portsmouth would be an excellent place to build those ships?

David Cameron: First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on everything she has done in recent weeks to highlight the importance of Portsmouth and all matters maritime, in the broadest sense of the word?
	I am aware of this interesting project, and I understand there will be a meeting with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills shortly. It is testament to the excellent reputation of Portsmouth that there is so much interest in this commercial sector, which my hon. Friend, I and the whole Government want to see expand. The appointment of a Minister for Portsmouth, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), will make a big difference. It is good news that the youth claimant count has fallen so quickly in Portsmouth, but we must stick to the economic plan and keep delivering for Portsmouth.

Clive Efford: Increasingly in London, young people are finding it impossible to afford to rent or buy a home, so why, under this Government, are we seeing the lowest number of housing starts since the 1920s and a housing bubble driven by wealthy overseas buyers?

David Cameron: On the last point, it is this Government who are introducing capital gains tax for overseas buyers—something that the Labour party did not do in 13 years. On housing, nearly 400,000 new homes have been delivered since 2010 and huge amounts of money are going into social housing. It is also this Government who are reforming the planning system, often opposed by Labour, to make all these things happen.

Bernard Jenkin: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the Public Administration Committee inquiry into police recorded crime statistics has uncovered serious deficiencies in the reliability of those statistics? While crime is undoubtedly falling overall, would he agree that the Home Office should work urgently with police chiefs across the country to restore the authority of these statistics, and that police chiefs should concentrate on leadership based on values and service to the public, not on discredited targets?

David Cameron: In fact, we have scrapped all targets apart from the target of reducing crime, which is the most important thing that the police do.
	Statistics must be as robust as possible. That is why we have transferred responsibility for crime statistics to the independent Office for National Statistics and have asked Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to carry out an audit on the quality of crime recording in every police force. Moreover, the Home Secretary has written to all chief constables emphasising that the police must ensure that crimes are recorded accurately and honestly.
	Let me also point out to my hon. Friend, and indeed to everyone, that what is notable about the recent crime statistics is that, whether we look at crimes recorded by the police or at the British crime survey, they both show that crime is falling, and has already fallen by more than 10%.

Mark Lazarowicz: I thank the Prime Minister for his comments about Mohammad Asghar, from Edinburgh, and endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore). Dozens of the Prime Minister’s own Back Benchers have said that tomorrow they will support an amendment to the Immigration Bill which everyone knows to be totally incompatible with the European treaties, and 95 Tory MPs have demanded that the British Parliament should be able to veto every single European Union law, which, as the Prime Minister knows, is totally unworkable. The Prime Minister has given concession after concession to his anti-Europeans. When will he finally learn that they will never be satisfied with anything but British withdrawal from the European Union?

David Cameron: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The fact is that we need to correct—and we will correct, in the Immigration Bill—the fact that it has been so difficult to deport people who do not have a right to be here, and who should be facing trial overseas or deported overseas, but advance spurious arguments about the right to a family life. It is right that we are changing that. There is nothing anti-European about it.
	It is a very sensible step that the Government are taking, and we should pass the Immigration Bill with all speed.

Alec Shelbrooke: Last year, the Government successfully deported the radical cleric Abu Qatada. The new Immigration Bill will crack down on illegal immigrants and will make it easier to deport foreign criminals. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that immigration law also applies to political parties and their gurus?

David Cameron: I can, but I am sure that I should not comment on a case that is, I believe, currently being investigated. [Hon. Members: “Go on!”] No, don’t tempt me.
	It is an important piece of law that we will be discussing on Thursday. We do not just need to have control at our borders; we need to ensure that people cannot come to Britain and abuse our health service, or get rights to council or other housing, or bank accounts or driving licences, if they have no right to be here. The Immigration Bill makes all those important changes and many more besides, including making it possible for us to deport people before they have appealed if they do not face a risk back in their own countries. They can then appeal from overseas. Those are all very good changes, and I hope that we will not delay too much before passing this important Bill.

Ian Murray: People in my constituency, and throughout the country, are working harder and harder just to make ends meet, as their pay is consistently outstripped by prices. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Business Secretary, who said this week that a property-fuelled recovery was the wrong sort of recovery? May I be helpful to the Prime Minister, and inform him that the answer is on page 37 of his folder?

David Cameron: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the Business Secretary said that it was welcome that—in terms of our GDP growth—we have seen strong growth in manufacturing and industrial production, and not just in services. I think that is important.
	If we are to ensure that we genuinely help people as our economy grows, we need to cut people’s taxes. The point is that we have cut people’s taxes because we have made difficult decisions about public spending. Every single one of those decisions has been opposed by the Labour party, but if we had listened to them, people would be in a more difficult situation in respect of the cost of living, rather than a better one.

David Heath: I thank the Prime Minister, on behalf of all the people of Somerset, for his announcement about the dredging of the Parrett and the Tone, where an area larger than the size of Bristol is under water and has been under water for a month. I also thank all those who are working so hard on the ground. Can I take it from the Prime Minister that he is committing the whole of the Government, including the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department for Transport and the Treasury, to working with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to deal with this situation, not just for now but for future years?

David Cameron: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. This does need to be a whole Government effort, because what I do not want to see is dredging work being held up by arguments in other Departments. We have to crack this problem. I join him in praising all of those—the emergency services, the Environment Agency, local flood wardens—who have done such valuable work, including in the Somerset levels, but we now need to move more rapidly to issues such as dredging, which I think will help to make a long-term difference.

Emily Thornberry: Mount Pleasant in my constituency is a massive development site that used to belong to Royal Mail, and therefore to all of us. It was sold for an absolute song. Is it not morally right for at least half the site to be used for local people? Independent valuers have said that the developers could build 50% genuinely affordable housing and still make a huge profit. In those circumstances and given the level of local opposition to the current plan to develop the site, would it not be outrageous for the Mayor of London to approve it? How can 12% affordable housing help with the cost of living crisis for Londoners?

David Cameron: I am happy to look at the site that the hon. Lady mentioned, but it is important that we allow the Mayor of London to carry out his planning responsibilities. What is important is that, when there are redevelopment opportunities, they are not endlessly blocked, because we need the development, the growth and the housing.

Graham Evans: Holocaust memorial day took place on Monday. Would the Prime Minister join me—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is talking about Holocaust memorial day. Please let us have some respect on both sides of the House.

Graham Evans: Holocaust memorial day took place on Monday. Would the Prime Minister join me in commending the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust in educating future generations about the holocaust? Would he comment on the Holocaust Commission that he formally launched this week?

David Cameron: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Holocaust memorial day is a very important day in our annual calendar and it gave me enormous pleasure to welcome to Downing street no fewer than 50 holocaust survivors, who talked about their stories—incredibly moving and brave stories. We should thank them for the work they have done in going into school after school, college after college, to remind people of the dangers of what happened and how we should drive out hate and prejudice from every part of our national life. The Holocaust Commission has been set up—it is cross-party, with representatives from all parties—to ask the question: as, tragically, these Holocaust survivors come to the end of their lives, what should we do as a country to ensure that the memory of this never fades? Should that be a new museum, a new way of remembering, or a way of recording their memories?
	All those things will be looked at and I look forward to getting the commission’s report. I am sure it will have support across the House.

Steve Rotheram: Despite the rhetoric, for most ordinary people the reality is that child poverty is up, food bank usage is up, payday lending is up, energy costs are up and wages are down. The Prime Minister once said that he wanted the top job because he thought he would be good at it, so when will he start to govern for all the people in all the country?

David Cameron: Just to correct the first thing that came out of the hon. Gentleman’s mouth, under this Government child poverty is down, on the measure that he prefers. Frankly, I am not satisfied with the measure. I think we need a better measure, but what I would say to him is that employment is up, growth is up and the number of businesses is up. Yes, we have a long way to go to restore our economic fortunes, but we have a long-term economic plan. It is delivering for Britain’s families. We have got to stick at it.

Richard Harrington: I am very pleased to report that large companies are finding Watford a very attractive place to do business. I would like to mention Wickes in particular, which is setting up its headquarters in Watford, with 200 new jobs, next week. I am very pleased about that, but I must report that at a recent meeting at Wenta, the enterprise hub in Watford which I visited last week, I saw quite a few small businesses such as AC Solutions and Pocketfit Training, and they told me that they were very frustrated by the amount of bureaucracy and red tape that is hindering their business. I would like to ask the Prime Minister what his Government intend to do about that.

David Cameron: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says about the business environment in Watford. We have helped businesses with taxes. We are helping with red tape. We are helping them with their exports. On red tape, this is going to be the first Government in modern history who at the end of the Parliament will have less regulation in place than at the beginning. I commend the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills for its work, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Government Policy for his heroic efforts to get that legislation and those regulations on to websites so that people can tell us what we can remove. We are on target for scrapping 3,000 regulations under this Government, something of which we can be proud.

Lisa Nandy: This month, Cabinet papers have revealed that the Thatcher Government sought to escalate the miners’ strike, close pits and undermine solidarity. The scars from that dispute run deep in communities such as Wigan, where some families have never recovered and where people have died while waiting for justice. Thirty years on, those communities deserve the truth and an apology. Why are they still waiting?

David Cameron: As the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General said, we now have a system for releasing paperwork from 10, 20 and 30 years
	ago, and we should stick to that. I have to say that if anyone needs to make an apology for their role in the miners’ strike, it should be Arthur Scargill for the appalling way in which he led that union. While we are at it, if we want to ask about other people’s roles, there was the role of the then leader of the Labour party, who at the time never condemned the fact that they would not hold a ballot. So I think there are lessons for Labour to learn, and judging by their performance today, they have not learned any of them.

Tessa Munt: The Prime Minister is an ex officio Church Commissioner, and he will be aware of the plans to house the new Bishop of Bath and Wells outside the city. Will the Prime Minister do everything in his power to postpone the loss of the bishop’s palace in Wells, which has served perfectly well as the residence of the bishops of Bath and Wells for 800 years?

David Cameron: That might well be a question for the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), who guides me on these important issues, but I will go away and look into the issue of the Bishop of Bath and Wells. I shall try to put the image of Blackadder out of my mind and to come up with the right answer.

Barry Gardiner: If we are to have a Parliament that reflects the people that it serves, the Prime Minister must be disappointed that one in 10 of his women MPs who came into Parliament in 2010 have indicated that they will not stand again, and that one of his most senior women Select Committee Chairs is now facing deselection. What is the Tory party’s problem with women?

David Cameron: I am immensely proud of the fact that, while in the last Parliament we had 19 women Conservative MPs, the figure has risen to closer to 50 in this Parliament. That is progress. Do I want us to go further and faster? Yes I do, and we will start by targeting the hon. Gentleman’s seat at the next election.

Gerald Howarth: I am sure that the whole House will wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on sticking to their economic guns, which is producing prosperity for the kingdom, not least in Aldershot, where the number of JSA claimants has decreased by a third over the past year. Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that it would be a huge and foolish mistake if the British people were to place their trust in the shadow Chancellor, who has never owned up to the last Labour Government’s responsibility for the catastrophic budget deficit and who now sticks to the unreconstructed socialist policy of tax and spend, which would ruin Britain?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes his point with characteristic strength and clarity. The fact is that the Labour party has learned no lessons from the past and says that it would do it all over again. It has tax and employment policies that would cost jobs, and businesses are now saying that it has not got a clue. I do not know whether Members have seen the film “Gravity”, but the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor remind me of two people who have stepped out into a
	void with absolutely no idea of what to do next. Like that great film, this is a tragedy made right here in Britain.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Last but not least, Caroline Lucas.

Caroline Lucas: In the light of the Prime Minister’s welcome recognition at last week’s PMQs that Brighton is indeed a superb and sunny place, will he come and visit the Brighton Energy Co-operative in my constituency, which demonstrates the real potential of community renewables, particularly solar power? Will he also acknowledge that if the Government’s new community energy strategy were to include the provision for energy providers to sell directly
	to consumers, it would have far more potential? Will he pursue that strategy instead of his evidence-free fantasies about fracking?

David Cameron: I am sure that I will be in Brighton before long, and I look forward to hearing the renewable energy story there. I would say that we need both of those things. We have now set out the strike prices and brought in the Energy Act, so that we can be a real magnet for investment in renewable energy, but I also think that we should take advantage of shale gas, because it provides an opportunity to have clean gas, helping to keep our energy bills down. I would say to those in the green movement who oppose shale gas simply because it includes carbon that that is a deeply misguided approach. We want to have affordable energy as well as green energy. That should be our goal.

Syrian Refugees

Theresa May: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement regarding the Government’s proposal to relocate some of the most vulnerable refugees who have fled the conflict in Syria. The whole House will join me in deploring the appalling scenes of violence and suffering that we have witnessed in Syria. More than 100,000 people have been killed, and the credible reports of systematic use of torture and starvation are simply sickening. Millions of innocent people have fled their homes. There are now more than 11 million Syrians in desperate need, including 6.5 million people displaced inside Syria and more than 2.3 million refugees in neighbouring countries, at least half of whom are children. The numbers are staggering and the scale of the crisis is immense. The Prime Minister has rightly called it the greatest refugee crisis of our time.
	The greatest contribution we can make is to work to end the conflict altogether, using UK diplomacy and our international influence to support the negotiations taking place in Geneva at this moment, and that is precisely what we are doing. Our goal is a peaceful settlement that enables a political transition and an end to the violence in Syria. That is the only way to create the conditions for all Syrian refugees to do what they most want to do, which is to return to their homes and livelihoods in peace.
	We are also leading the world in responding to the humanitarian disaster. Britain is the second largest bilateral donor in the world after the United States. We have provided £600 million for the Syrian relief effort so far, of which £500 million has already been allocated to support refugees and the internally displaced. We are helping Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey to support those who have sought refuge there. As a result of our assistance, 320,000 people a month are being given food, 900,000 a month have drinking water, and we have enabled almost 316, 000 medical consultations to take place. This is the UK’s largest ever response to a humanitarian crisis, and it comes on top of our efforts to secure humanitarian access inside Syria and to provide essential materials such as shelter, blankets and stoves to help vulnerable Syrians to survive the winter.
	The greatest need is in the region and it is there that the United Kingdom can make the largest impact. The Prime Minister made it clear last week that our country has a proud tradition of providing protection to those in need, and where there are particularly difficult cases of vulnerable refugees who are at grave risk, we are ready to look at those cases. Following consultations with the London office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in recent days, I can tell the House that the Government will be launching a new programme to provide emergency sanctuary in the UK for displaced Syrians who are particularly vulnerable.
	The programme—the vulnerable person relocation scheme—will be based on three principles. First, we are determined to ensure that our assistance is targeted where it can have the most impact on the refugees at greatest risk. The programme will focus on individual cases where evacuation from the region is the only option. In particular, we will prioritise help for survivors
	of torture and violence and for women and children at risk or in need of medical care who are recommended to us for relocation by UNHCR. That is where we, as the United Kingdom, can make a distinctive contribution. For example, some of the worst abuses in the Syrian conflict involve the use of sexual violence, including in regime detention centres. The UK’s preventing sexual violence initiative is working to end those crimes globally. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has deployed teams of experts to train Syrians to document and investigate crimes of sexual violence and enable future prosecutions. The Department for International Development is prioritising the protection of women and girls, including providing clinical care for 12,000 Syrian refugee survivors of sexual and gender-based violence in Jordan. Looking at examples such as these through our resettlement scheme, without excluding any others, will help promote our wider goal of ending war-zone sexual violence. That is an approach co-ordinated across the whole of Government.
	Secondly, the scheme will be run in addition to the two resettlement programmes the Home Office operates in partnership with the UNHCR: the gateway programme, which settles 750 refugees from a small number of targeted locations every year; and the mandate resettlement scheme, which is designed to resettle individual refugees who have been recognised as refugees by the UNHCR and have a close family member in the UK who is willing to accommodate them. It will also be in addition to the asylum claims that we have been considering—and will continue to consider—under our normal rules. Since the crisis began, we have taken in nearly 3,500 Syrian asylum seekers, the fourth highest number in the European Union, with 1,100 Syrian nationals recognised as refugees in the year to September 2013.
	Thirdly, because we want to focus our assistance on the most vulnerable people, we do not intend to subscribe to a quota scheme. I want to make it clear to the House, therefore, that this programme will run in parallel with the UNHCR’s Syria humanitarian admission programme and we will work in close consultation with UNHCR offices in London, in Geneva and in the region.
	The United Kingdom has a deep and strong working relationship with the UNHCR built up over many years and £61 million of UK humanitarian assistance to Syria is being delivered through UNHCR programmes. Our approach is entirely consistent with the wider UNHCR programme, is supported by it and will allow us the control to make the best use of our capability to help these cases.
	This House and our whole country can be proud of the role we are playing in supporting the Syrian people at a time of great crisis. British money is helping to provide food, water and shelter to hundreds of thousands of displaced Syrians every day. We are granting asylum to those who need it, consistent with this country’s proud tradition of giving help to those who need it most, and through the relocation scheme that I have announced today we will be providing emergency sanctuary to the people who are most at risk, including victims of torture and violence. But the only way for the violence and suffering to end is with a negotiated political transition and the Government will spare no effort in working to find a peaceful solution to the crisis that will allow refugees to return home. I commend the statement to the House.

Yvette Cooper: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement today. We have long had cross-party agreement about humanitarian aid for those suffering in the region as a result of the dreadful conflict and crisis in Syria. I believe that now we can come together with cross-party support for helping the most vulnerable civilian refugees, too.
	Compassion and common sense have prevailed over the Government’s resistance last week. Britain is rightly providing help and assistance to the majority of refugees that have claimed sanctuary in the neighbouring countries—Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey—and is rightly leading international efforts, but the Opposition and many others have argued for some time that a minority of refugees are too vulnerable to cope or survive in the camps: the abandoned children, torture victims, women who have been abused and those who need medical help.
	We have all heard the heartrending stories of children burnt by chemicals, families torn apart, fathers executed and mothers raped, so when the UN asked us and other countries across the world to provide sanctuary to the most vulnerable refugees and 18 other countries stepped forward to help it was simply wrong of Britain to refuse. It is a tribute to the support of Members from all parties in this House, to the charities that have campaigned on the subject and to the UN that the Home Secretary has bowed to the pressure before the Opposition day debate this afternoon. It is a reversal of her position last week, but she is right to have listened and I am glad that she has done so.
	I particularly welcome the Government’s commitment to helping the survivors of torture and violence, women and children at risk and those who have suffered sexual violence. Let me now ask the Home Secretary a series of questions about her announcement today. First, I welcome her announcement that these places will be in addition to the places provided by the UN to the existing UN gateway and mandate programmes. Countries such as France, Finland and Austria have each agreed to take about 500 refugees, and the Netherlands 250. The right hon. Lady has not set a specific figure, but can she confirm that she expects Britain to provide similar levels of sanctuary?
	Secondly, can the Home Secretary confirm that the refugees to whom Britain offers sanctuary will also have access to specialist help and support—for example, working with many of the excellent charities that help those who have suffered great trauma and abuse?
	The right hon. Lady says that much of the programme will in fact be delivered by the UNHCR, and she will know that all the things she says she wants to do—the three principles she set out—are possible within the UN Syria programme. Some countries within it have set specific figures; some, such as the US, have not set what she would call a quota, but are still operating within the UN programme. So my third question is: is what she has announced effectively the UN programme, but with a different name?
	Fourthly, will the Home Secretary agree to look again at her net migration target? I am sure she agrees with me that there is a world of difference between immigration policy and border control on the one hand, and giving
	sanctuary to those fleeing persecution on the other. Refugees are included in her net migration target; does she agree that they should no longer be?
	I believe that there is now cross-party agreement in support of helping the vulnerable refugees whose lives have been wrecked by the Syrian conflict, and I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement today. Britain has a long history of helping those who are fleeing terror and persecution. We should stand together in this House and support that tradition now.

Theresa May: I think this is an issue on which Members from all parties across the House can genuinely come together and welcome the steps—all the steps—taken by the Government to provide aid and support to those suffering from the terrible humanitarian crisis resulting from the conflict in Syria.
	The right hon. Lady asked several questions, the first about the numbers. We have not set a figure. As the Deputy Prime Minister made clear earlier today, we expect several hundred refugees to come, but we have not set a quota precisely because we want to look at particular needs.
	It is particular needs that drive the answer to right hon. Lady’s second question, about specialist help and support. We will of course look to the arrangements we have used for the gateway programme, for example, to see the extent to which we will be able to relocate refugees in line with our existing structures and relationships with local authorities, but there will be people, identified on a case-by-case basis, who need very particular assistance—perhaps very particular medical assistance. We will of course seek to ensure that that is provided for those individuals.
	The scheme I have announced is, I think, in the spirit of the UNHCR programme, but it is not technically part of it. The UNHCR has welcomed what we are doing—[Interruption.] I have to say to the Opposition Front Benchers that I think they are trying to make an argument where we do not need to have one. We took a very simple decision. We wanted to create a scheme that gives us greater flexibility and enables us to focus clearly on the issues on which the Government as a whole have been focusing, particularly women and girls at risk and preventing sexual violence. I hope that the whole House accepts that the scheme will offer genuine benefit to some of the most vulnerable people who have been displaced from Syria, and that it will welcome the scheme.

Menzies Campbell: As one who was critical earlier this week, I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement—although I cannot conceal my belief that perhaps it would have been better had we been a part of the overall UNHCR programme.
	My right hon. Friend knows that I have previously emphasised the need to deal properly with the children who have suffered so grievously in Syria, and I hope that she will ensure that that is given due regard in applying any criteria.
	If anyone is moved to challenge the decision my right hon. Friend has announced, I remind her of the wise words of her noble Friend Lord Hurd, who on a similar occasion said, “The fact that we can’t do everything does not mean that we should do nothing.”

Theresa May: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his comments. I am pleased that he is pleased that I have been able to respond rather more fully on this issue today than I was able to do in oral questions on Monday. We will give priority to survivors of torture and violence, women and children in need and at risk, and particularly those in need of medical care. I hope that the priorities that we are setting will incorporate his concerns on this issue. The flexibility that we have within the scheme will be of benefit to us.

Jack Straw: In the early 1990s, the Major Government accepted under humanitarian programmes about 3,000 refugees from Bosnia, and in the late 1990s, when I was Home Secretary, we accepted a slightly larger number from Kosovo, because of the terrible crises that existed in both those territories at those times. Will the Home Secretary look carefully at the experience of both the Bosnian and the Kosovan refugees to see what lessons can be learned, including about support within the UK, for these vulnerable people, and the contribution that these people, who often did not have go through the awful hoops of seeking access to this country, were able to make subsequently to our prosperity?

Theresa May: I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the contribution that has been made by many groups of refugees who, over the years, have found sanctuary here in the United Kingdom. We will, of course, look at past experience. When the scheme was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman there was no limit on numbers, so it was not a quota system. The circumstances in Syria are slightly different from those in Bosnia in terms of the scale of the numbers involved. That is why the focus must continue to be on helping the maximum number of people by aid being given within region, which, as I have said, is where the UK has a very proud record.

Nicola Blackwood: I thank the Home Secretary for the statement. It is unquestionably right that we should offer refuge to the most vulnerable refugees, and I particularly welcome the focus on survivors of torture and sexual violence, many of whom remain at risk even in refugee settlements. But the effectiveness of this scheme will depend on early identification and access to the right package of specialist support in the UK. How will she ensure a seamless transition between identification in country and access to those specialist services in the UK?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes an important point. This will depend very much on the relationship that we have built up and will be exercising with the UNHCR in terms of identifying those cases that it believes it is appropriate for the UK to take, and in doing so to work with it to ensure that we understand the nature of the case and the particular needs of the individual. The transition will depend on that relationship and us working with UNHCR.

Keith Vaz: I, too, warmly welcome what the Home Secretary has done. She has done absolutely the right thing. On the question of resettlement, will she ensure that she involves the British-Arab diaspora? There are 10,000 Syrians living in this country. I do not
	know what the formal structure will be— it will certainly not be as big as the resettlement of the Gurkhas—but their involvement could be helpful for those who are vulnerable.
	There is £90 million sitting in bank accounts in London that has been frozen that belongs to the Syrian Government. Will she speak to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether we can access some of those funds, as other EU countries have done, to help with our humanitarian efforts.

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman makes two very good points. On the first issue, as I have said, we have some existing relationships with local authorities, for example, which we work with in resettling through existing resettlement programmes. He makes an important point that refugees coming into this country being able to be welcomed into an environment by people with a similar background can make that transition easier, particularly for someone who is vulnerable. We will be looking carefully, on a case-by-case basis, at how we deal with individuals.
	I am certainly willing to talk to the Chancellor about the right hon. Gentleman’s second point. My understanding was that there are strict rules about these frozen accounts and whether it was possible to access money within them. If there is an opportunity to do so, I will certainly be talking to my right hon. Friend.

Alistair Burt: I very much welcome this thoughtful and tailored extension of what the UK is already doing in relation to Syrian refugees, not least in relation to the situation of women, who will need special care bearing in mind the circumstances from which they come and the impact upon them. In view of the need for us to stay close to the UN, for whom no country could have done more than ourselves, will my right hon. Friend confirm that this does have its endorsement as the right thing for the UK to do, and that her approach will remain flexible should circumstances require it?

Theresa May: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. He has long been promoting the needs of Syrian refugees, particularly women and children who are at risk. I can confirm that the UNHCR has endorsed and welcomed the scheme. The UNHCR’s representative to the UK, Roland Schilling, said:
	“We welcome the announcement of the UK government to provide refuge to some of the most vulnerable Syrian refugees, in cooperation with UNHCR. This decision will help to provide much needed solutions for vulnerable Syrian refugees…Today’s decision is an encouraging and important step, reaffirming the UK’s commitment and contribution to international relief efforts in support of more than 2.3 million Syrian refugees and the countries hosting them. UNHCR also recognises the UK’s generous contribution towards massive humanitarian needs in the region.”

Gerald Kaufman: What about the 560,000 Palestinian refugees in Syria, marooned by a conflict that is not their conflict and with no homes to go to? In the Al Yarmouk camp, they are dying of starvation and their food consists of grass and animal food. What precisely and specifically is being done for the Palestinian refugees?

Theresa May: We are, as a country, helping Palestinian refugees who have been able to leave Syria. But the problem with helping those who are in Syria is the lack
	of access to them, which is the result of the action taken by and the attitude of the Syrian Government. Obviously, some recent steps have been indicated in terms of possible humanitarian access in Syria. We all want to ensure that we can have access to be able to provide support to those people who are suffering inside Syria as a result of this conflict.

James Gray: I warmly welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement today. Saving the life of even one woman or child or person who has been tortured or starved in Syria is well worth doing. Does she agree that these people will not necessarily come here for ever? Many of them will come for treatment of one sort or another or for rehabilitation, and we look forward to the time when they may be able to return to their homeland at some stage in the future.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The vast majority of Syrian refugees want to be able to return to their homes and live in peace. Under the scheme, we will be offering a temporary residence here in the UK, but we will consider each individual case as the situation in Syria evolves.

Elfyn Llwyd: Will the Home Secretary kindly confirm that asylum seeker status and refugee status are entirely different things in international law? Will she also confirm that she will liaise closely with the Welsh Government on resettlement?

Theresa May: I am very happy to liaise closely with the Welsh Government, and any opportunities or support that they can give on the relocation of individuals who come to the UK as a result of this scheme will be welcomed. There are different types of status for individuals. We will consider the matter further, but we currently propose that these individuals will be given temporary residence here, but with access to the labour market and other benefits in the same way as refugees would have.

John Baron: As someone who was critical of the Government’s position on this, I congratulate the Home Secretary on this announcement. Will she confirm that, when looking at the criteria, children will not be separated from parents?

Theresa May: I assure my hon. Friend that there is no intention to separate children from parents.

Ann Clwyd: I welcome what the Home Secretary has announced today, but I do not quite understand why we are not working hand in hand with the UNHCR resettlement scheme. Is it because under that scheme Germany has committed to taking at least 10,000 refugees? Will we be able to match that figure?

Theresa May: We are working hand in hand with the UNHCR, but we are doing so with very particular priorities and with a degree of flexibility that we feel being part of the programme to which the hon. Lady refers would not give us.

Sarah Teather: Having visited Jordan and seen the conditions in which Syrian refugees are living, I am absolutely delighted that the Home
	Secretary has made this statement—I hope that it gives her heart to think that doing the humane thing for refugees is often popular and not always unpopular. I am a little disappointed that we are not signed up to the UNHCR’s scheme, but so long as we are working hand in hand with it to identify the vulnerable people, that is what is most important. I ask her to keep under review the priorities she has set as the crisis unfolds, because the people who are the most vulnerable may well change over time. If we are to have our own programme, rather than the UNHCR scheme, that might be important.

Theresa May: I take the hon. Lady’s point about continuing to look at the priorities we have set. As I have said, those priorities tie in with other work we are doing in the region. I think that it is important to have that degree of flexibility, which is what having our own scheme gives us. However, I reiterate the point I made in answer to the previous question: we are working alongside and hand in hand with the UNHCR.

Glenda Jackson: While I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and share her pride in the way this country has acted so positively in furnishing humanitarian aid to the refugees, will she clarify who will be responsible for defining what constitutes the most vulnerable? I welcome her earlier response that children will not be separated from their parents, but will she also ensure that they are not separated from their siblings?

Theresa May: The intention is that responsibility for determining that will be with the UK and the UNHCR, working together. The UNHCR will identify cases and we will work with it to identify whether the UK could provide the necessary support in those cases and therefore take them on board. The intention is not to separate families. Obviously there might be children with particular needs, such as particular medical needs, but the intention is not to separate families.

Bob Stewart: The organisation that goes into the greatest danger and is often best placed to identify victims of torture and sexual misconduct is the International Committee of the Red Cross, which in my view is often much better than the UNHCR. What is its involvement with the UNHCR in deciding who should come to this country?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have made it clear that we will be looking at the issue primarily with the UNHCR, which I think is appropriate, because it is on the ground and identifying vulnerable individuals, but I hope that the International Committee of the Red Cross will work with it to ensure—

Bob Stewart: It is better at doing that.

Theresa May: I hear what my hon. Friend says and recognise his experience when it comes to people who are displaced and vulnerable as a result of conflict. We will of course look to ensure that the Red Cross and the UNHCR work together to identify the cases that are appropriate for the UK.

Bob Ainsworth: I welcome the decision that the Home Secretary has taken today, but surely she recognises that we also have a proud record of championing multilateral responses to international crises. If every country demanded the
	flexibility to set up parallel and unilateral schemes, the entire effort would be undermined to some degree. Does she not at least recognise that? Why is the flexibility she is asking for so important? It undermines our ability to be part of the multilateral effort to help those refugees.

Theresa May: I take a slightly different view from the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think that countries that take a separate route, working with the UNHCR to identify vulnerable cases, undermine the international community’s ability to provide support, aid and help to those who are vulnerable as a result of the Syrian conflict. I think that what we are doing is absolutely appropriate. We will be working with the UNHCR, as I have said, but we have identified a bespoke scheme that will allow us to focus on particular groups of people, such as victims of sexual violence and women and children who are at risk or in need of medical assistance. We will be able to prioritise those groups within the scheme in a way that would not have been fully possible under another scheme.

Jonathan Djanogly: I certainly support the Home Secretary’s statement. I visited a Syrian refugee camp in Turkey only recently, and they were very thankful for the support Britain is providing, but I have to tell her that in three days not a single refugee told me that they wanted to relocate to Britain, or indeed any other country; they wanted to go home and to be free from a murderous regime. I think that we need to keep that in mind when prioritising our resources.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I commend him and the other Members of the House who visited the refugee camp in Turkey, led by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown). They not only talked with the refugees there, but did some constructive work to support them. He is absolutely right that the vast majority of refugees want to be able to return home to a Syria that is not in conflict. That is why our first priority must be to try to ensure that there is a political resolution and a smooth transition in the government of Syria. Our second priority must be to help those who are “in region”, which means that they will be able to return home when the time comes.

William McCrea: I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement and welcome the Government’s decision to receive the most vulnerable refugees from Syria. It is also vital that the humanitarian aid that we are sending reaches those most in need. However, on the point that the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) made, is it not most important that the Government strengthen their efforts to bring about a negotiated settlement that will finally end the nightmare that is happening in Syria and meet the needs of the people of Syria?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that our first focus must be on trying to ensure that we see that political transition taking place so that the refugees can return home and Syria can return to peace. That is why the efforts being made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary are so important. He has
	been one of the leading figures in the international community trying to secure the Geneva II negotiations and ensure that we get positive results from them.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. A large number of colleagues wish to participate, but there is also a debate on this very subject to follow. Therefore, my normal practice of calling everybody might not apply today. What is required is brevity, and I think that the textbook on succinctness can be written by Dr Julian Lewis.

Julian Lewis: I was afraid that you would choose me for that, Mr Speaker.
	Like hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, I strongly endorse any help that can be given to vulnerable victims of war, but with regard to the second category that the Home Secretary mentioned—people who have received political asylum—can she assure the House that they are being properly screened so that we do not store up trouble for the future for our security services, as we are already worried about jihadists of our own going out to Syria and coming back?

Theresa May: I can assure my hon. Friend that all the appropriate checks are made.

Mr Speaker: I hope that others will have studied that textbook.

Meg Munn: I commend the Secretary of State for International Development for her regular updates to MPs. I ask the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary to work together so that we get regular updates on what is happening, including the total number of refugees and the progress of the scheme so that hon. Members who are concerned about what is happening can be kept up to date regularly.

Theresa May: I am happy to ensure that regular updates are available for Members, working with not only the Foreign Secretary, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, who should be commended not only for her updates to the House, but for the leading role she has played in providing humanitarian aid in the region.

Phillip Lee: I of course very much welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. There is a good history of orphans from war-torn countries growing up to be much-valued citizens in their adopted countries. Will she consider prioritising Syrian orphans and perhaps increasing the number that Britain will take? Such a policy would be both morally right and of great benefit to this country’s future.

Theresa May: I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but I say to him that we will work with the UNHCR, which will identify the cases that are most vulnerable and most appropriate in terms of the support that the UK can provide.

Tom Clarke: Non-governmental organisations, such as the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development and Christian Aid, very much welcome the Government’s humanitarian
	contribution to these awful problems and will no doubt welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. However, they are puzzled, as I am, that the Government have not thus far associated themselves with the UNHCR’s programme, and therefore with 18 important countries. That lack of solidarity seems to be a wee bit intransigent and hardly fits in with the rest of the Government’s approach. Have I missed an obvious explanation?

Mr Speaker: I see that the right hon. Gentleman has put in to speak in the debate as well. We are grateful to him. He will have made two speeches by the end of it.

Theresa May: I refer the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) to the quote I gave earlier from the UNHCR’s representative to the UK, who has welcomed our announcement. He said that it
	“will help to provide much needed solutions for vulnerable Syrian refugees”,
	and that it reaffirms
	“the UK’s commitment and contribution to international relief efforts”.
	I think that what matters is whether we are providing help and support for vulnerable refugees in Syria. We are showing solidarity through the humanitarian aid effort that we are providing. As I have said, we are providing the second largest contribution in the humanitarian aid effort in the world, after the United States, which is a very big step in showing solidarity.

Mark Pritchard: I warmly welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Following on from the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), I do not think that the word “orphans” was mentioned by her in the statement or, indeed, by the shadow Home Secretary. Is it not right that, by definition, vulnerable children and children at risk must include orphans?

Theresa May: As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), we will look at this case by case. We have said that children at risk are obviously one of the categories that we will prioritise. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has reminded me that our work on orphans is not just what will happen as a result of this scheme, because we are doing very specific work to support them in the region.

Jeremy Corbyn: I still do not understand why we cannot be part of the UNHCR programme, which seems the obvious thing to do? May I take the Home Secretary back to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman)? Many of the Palestinian refugees in Syria are themselves refugees from Iraq or, before that, other countries in the region. I hope that she will look very carefully and sympathetically at the plight of people driven from pillar to post by the travails and history of the whole region, and give at least them a place of safety here?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman is correct in his identification of the particular problem for many individuals who have been displaced not just once, but many times. That is why we have done specific work with Palestinian refugees who, as I understand it, are in the refugee camps. As I said in response to the right hon. Member
	for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), the problem about working with people inside Syria is of course the lack of access for humanitarian aid efforts in Syria.

Julian Huppert: This is a good announcement and an appropriate way to mark the 75 years since the Kindertransport, when this country saved 10,000 children from the horrors of the holocaust.
	I note that the Home Secretary said that the Government do not intend to subscribe to a quota scheme. Will she therefore confirm that there are no targets or limits on how many people can be taken, and that the number can be expanded if necessary?

Theresa May: We have not set a target or quota for the number of people who will be taken. The Deputy Prime Minister indicated earlier today that, as I have confirmed, we are probably looking at several hundred people, but we have not set a target.

Louise Ellman: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, which follows this country’s honourable tradition of supporting refugees. Will she consider giving support to effective charities, such as Asylum Link, to enable them to play their part, too?

Theresa May: I understand the hon. Lady’s point. As I have said, we are obviously looking at a number of asylum cases. The UK has taken the fourth highest number of asylum seekers of those taken into countries in the European Union. We of course look at every one of those cases on the right and proper basis of the need presented in the case.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), the refugees we spoke to told us some horrendous stories about how they got there. Will my right hon. Friend say exactly who will decide, and on what criteria, that one heart-rending case is given refuge here over another heart-rending case? Perhaps that should be done according to the specific medical skills that we can offer.

Theresa May: I say to my hon. Friend that there will be a combination of factors: the UNHCR will identify individuals who are particularly vulnerable or at risk, but we will have to consider whether the UK can provide the particular support that they need. That will be discussed with the UNHCR, but it will initially identify the most vulnerable cases.

Angus Robertson: Like the UK, Germany is among the largest bilateral humanitarian aid donors in Syria, but Angela Merkel’s Government have announced that they are prepared to take 10,000 refugees. The Government’s statement about hundreds of vulnerable people receiving refuge in the UK is welcome, but how does the Home Secretary account for the difference in the scale of ambition between the UK and Germany?

Theresa May: All countries look at how they are best able to give the support that they feel is right. As a country, we have put a particular focus on the amount of money and support that we give to people in the region. As
	several of my hon. Friends have said, most of the refugees in the camps want to be able to return to Syria. We believe that it is right to focus on humanitarian aid to support those in the refugee camps. It is also right to welcome some particularly vulnerable people to the United Kingdom, and I have set out that scheme today.

Graham Evans: Does my right hon. Friend share my pride that only one country, whose economy is six times the size of ours, is giving more help to Syria than Britain?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The United Kingdom can be very proud of its record on the humanitarian aid that it is giving refugees from the Syrian conflict. As he says, it is the second highest amount in the world—second only to the United States—so we can hold our heads high and recognise the tremendous support that we are giving to Syrian refugees.

Gisela Stuart: When does the Home Secretary expect the first people to arrive in this country under the scheme, and has she already had discussions about that, particularly with NHS trusts that will have to provide the capacity to deal with them?

Theresa May: I cannot give the hon. Lady a date for when the first people will arrive. We obviously have to ensure that we can provide individuals with appropriate accommodation and support. That process can be done generically at the start, but individuals will then have to be considered case by case.

Gerald Howarth: I appreciate the Home Secretary’s measured response to this dreadful tragedy, for which the United Kingdom has absolutely no responsibility whatsoever, but may I invite her to consider seeing it in the context of the overall impact of migration to this country in recent years? While Germany and France have population densities of 235 and 119 people per square kilometre, England and Wales have 374 people per square kilometre. I therefore suggest two things: first, that we should limit the scheme to hundreds and not thousands; and, secondly, that as a Christian country, we should prioritise Christians who are being persecuted in Syria. Does she agree?

Theresa May: I say to my hon. Friend that I am often very happy to debate and discuss immigration matters with him, but today our focus must be on the help that we are providing to the most vulnerable Syrian refugees. I have indicated the categories of vulnerability that we will prioritise, but I repeat that they are survivors of torture and violence, women and children at risk and those in need of medical care.

Stephen Twigg: I welcome the Home Secretary’s emphasis on those who have faced sexual violence. Is she aware of the work of Human Rights Watch in respect of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Syrian refugees? Will such refugees have access to the programme?

Theresa May: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the comment that he has made. In putting the priorities together, I decided that although we will have a focus on women and children at risk, the survivors of torture and violence will include not only women and children, but people of both genders. It is therefore quite possible that individuals who have been subject to the sort of violence that he raises will qualify within that category.

Jake Berry: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Emphasis has correctly been placed on helping people who have been subjected to the worst abuses of the Syrian conflict, including sexual violence and being detained in regime detention centres. Will she confirm that when people are brought to this country, the evidence collection will not end? It is vital that when people are taken away from the refugee camps, the UK Government continue to co-operate with the evidence collection so that the perpetrators of crimes can be prosecuted.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I said earlier, this country is helping with the process of evidence collection by training Syrians to collect evidence. It is important that in bringing people to the UK, we do not lose the possibility that evidence can be collected and break that chain. I entirely accept the point that he has made.

Caroline Lucas: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and particularly her focus on vulnerable groups. I want to return to the question that was raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg). LGBT groups have experienced particular victimisation, stigmatisation, violence and so forth. I urge her, in looking at vulnerable groups with the UN, to focus on LGBT communities. She said that it was “quite possible” that such people would qualify. That was not as reassuring as I had hoped.

Theresa May: I hoped in my answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby to make the point that the first category will be the survivors of torture and violence, and that we have a particular concern about those who have been subjected to sexual violence. I did not intend to suggest that this was only a “might possibly”. We will work with the UNHCR and it will make the initial identification of the most vulnerable cases and identify those for whom the support that is available in the UK would be most appropriate.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: I trust that the appetite of the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) was satisfied by one question. I know that there is an instinctive element to rising to ask questions and that people often do so automatically.

Rehman Chishti: The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) has said that we need to learn the lessons from Kosovo. Has the Secretary of State seen the comments that were made by the then Secretary of State for International Development, Clare Short? She said that Britain refused to take a quota:
	“We are not working on numbers. We are working on vulnerability and need”.
	She went on to say:
	“We believe that the refugees should be cared for in the region”.
	Does the Secretary of State agree that our approach is very similar to that of the previous Government to the refugees in Kosovo?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes a very good point and he is absolutely right. The important thing is that the United Kingdom asks what is the most appropriate way to support refugees who have been displaced by conflict, as in Syria. First and foremost, it is humanitarian aid in the region that is needed, but it is also right for us to take vulnerable cases and we have set no quota.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: I am sorry. Last but not least, I call Geoffrey Robinson.

Geoffrey Robinson: The Home Secretary will have been aware of the widespread unease across the House earlier in the week about the Government’s position on this issue. I therefore congratulate her, as others have, on the change of tone and spirit in her statement today, which has largely dispelled that unease. However, it is puzzling that Britain—a founding and permanent member of the Security Council—is running parallel with the UN on this matter. If we are working so closely with the UNHCR on this matter, surely we could take a leading role as we have on all other issues.

Theresa May: We are taking a leading role in providing aid and support to refugees from Syria in a variety of ways. We just do not happen to be signing up to a particular programme of the UNHCR. We are not working in parallel with the UN, but are working hand in hand with the UNHCR on a parallel scheme.

Mr Speaker: I appreciate the understanding of colleagues. The debate on this matter will follow relatively shortly and I am sure that there will be opportunities not only for speeches, but for interventions if Members still feel inclined to make them.

Local Government Boundary Commission (Public Representations)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

John Pugh: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to require the Local Government Boundary Commission to respond to public representations requesting principal area boundary reviews; and for connected purposes.
	We will discuss many solemn and important matters today, including Syria, and a ten-minute rule Bill perhaps sits a little oddly among them. It falls to me to add a little bathos to the day. Such is the relaxed and indifferent way in which the ten-minute rule is regarded, I could probably propose any legislative change without the House demurring much or even noticing. Were I to move the expropriation of the means of production and the institution of the dictatorship of the proletariat or the establishment of a theocracy, I think that the House might passively and unknowingly assent.
	It would be foolish of me to pretend that the boundaries of principal local authorities preoccupy many people. People care about many things, but local authority boundaries are some way down their priorities. MPs, however, get somewhat nervous at talk of boundaries. We can all recall the recent debacle of the misconceived legislation on parliamentary boundaries and the panic that surrounded it. Many an MP has a love-hate relationship with his or her local council, irrespective of whether the party that controls it is of his or her persuasion. Indeed, it is sometimes better for the MP if the controlling party is not the one to which he or she belongs.
	None of that should persuade us that everything in the garden is beautiful and that we should put up with the local government boundaries that we have. Boundaries are neither uncontentious nor inevitable. There has been a constant process of revision and evolution since the Redcliffe-Maud proposals ushered in the modern age. We have seen a range of things: the establishment of unitaries, the disappearance of counties and councils, the abolition of the metropolitan counties, the creation of the Greater London authority, and sundry minor tweaks.
	Many of the objections to boundary reviews have disappeared. At one time, it was held that a primary local authority must be of a given size. That requirement made a fair deal of sense when the local authorities ran all the schools before the legislation on academies and the like. We now live in an age when local authorities are losing control even of social services, as social care merges with health care and presumably comes under health and wellbeing boards. We also live in an age when councils share back-office functions and chief executives; outsource many of their functions; and co-operate in city region councils that look like the old metropolitan counties. The priority now is not size or scale, but local effectiveness and responsiveness.
	Where the council is not the best or most appropriate local voice, there will be demand for reconfiguration, the establishment of new councils, the reassignment of communities to neighbouring authorities or changes to the boundaries. The problem is not whether that should
	happen, but how it is to happen. The remit of the Local Government Boundary Commission is covered by two recent Acts: the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. Under the current legislation, there are three ways to engineer change: the Local Authority Boundary Commission can unilaterally decide to conduct a review, although it has no responsibility for implementing any review that it deigns to recommend; a council can ask for a review; or the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government can initiate a review by asking the Local Government Boundary Commission to act.
	The first two steps are unlikely. Councils do not vote for the change, just as turkeys do not vote for Christmas, and civil servants on commissions do not usually rock boats. Sadly, the Secretary of State has made what is almost a policy decision that he is not minded to recommend further reviews in this Parliament. In effect, no major boundary review of a major authority is likely to take place any time soon. I would therefore argue that the public voice is silenced, which is not in the spirit of the times.
	The public have been given many new powers—to thwart council tax increases, to bid to take over council services, to decide whether they want an elected mayor and to establish parish councils. However, they have absolutely no power to contest who runs their community. My Bill would change that by obliging the Local Government Boundary Commission to respond to public petitions, on the condition that the petition passes the same threshold as is necessary to force a vote on an elected mayor, which I believe is 10% of the electoral roll. Most people would accept that as an appreciable hurdle. A further condition could be put in place that it is the clear will of 20% of the wards making up a local authority. That, too, would count as reason to get the commission to respond. The mandatory response required from the commission would normally be to initiate a review or, in rare circumstances, to give clear and compelling reasons for not doing so.
	I will briefly give the example of my own local authority, Sefton, one of the Merseyside authorities, which is named after a hard-to-find little village in the middle of it. It has two very different centres of gravity and power—Bootle in the south and Southport on the Lancashire border in the north. After more than a quarter of a century of being a hung council, Sefton
	council passed into Labour control in 2011. Even now, the contrast between the two parts of the borough is extraordinarily stark. In the last election, in 2012, six of the seven Southport wards returned Liberal Democrats, with the Tories holding one. Southport has never elected a Labour councillor, a situation that I hope will be perpetuated. However, Sefton now has a ruling cabinet composed entirely of Bootle councillors. All the chairs of the scrutiny committees are also Labour appointments. I think we would accept that Bootle is incorrigibly Labour. It had the distinction of having the lowest amount spent by political parties per elector at the general election—it amounted to 14p per elector among all parties. It is fair to say that the floating vote sank a long time ago in Bootle.
	Understandably, when the council has to make cuts, Bootle councillors look favourably on their own patch. In the recent review of library services, three libraries were closed in Southport but none in Bootle, even though demand for those services was greater in Southport. Time has made a dysfunctional local authority appear more dysfunctional, which is why my local residents’ long-standing concern requires investigation. I personally favour the division of Sefton into two local authority units.
	Such scenarios are not uncommon, but in Sefton we have the advantage of having had a review in the past in response to public demand and petitioning. It was parked for a while—the Local Government Boundary Commission promised that it would reopen the issue if the council could better demonstrate that the interests and voices of the diverse communities in Sefton were not being well served. It was able to do that, but no solution is currently available, basically because the commission could not even respond to a timely reminder to return to unfinished business, no matter what the groundswell of public opinion. That problem clearly occurs in many places, but it is one with a solution, and I commend my Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That John Pugh, Annette Brooke, Sir Malcolm Bruce, Mr Frank Field, Sir Bob Russell, Andrew George, Nic Dakin, Heather Wheeler, Dr Julian Huppert and Tim Farron present the Bill.
	John Pugh accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February, and to be printed (Bill 165).

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[19th Allotted Day]
	 — 
	UNHCR Syrian Refugees Programme

Yvette Cooper: I beg to move,
	That this House welcomes the Government’s £600 million response to the unprecedented Syrian refugee crisis; further welcomes the UK’s leadership in the appeal for aid and supports calls for the rest of the international community to ensure the UN humanitarian appeal for Syria has the resources it needs to help those suffering from the conflict; is concerned about the plight of the most vulnerable refugees who will find it hardest to cope in the camps in the region, including victims of torture and children in need of special assistance; and calls on the Government to participate in the UNHCR Resettlement and Humanitarian Admission of Syrian Refugees Programme.
	Much has changed since we tabled the motion a week ago, and I am glad that it has. I am glad that we had the Home Secretary’s statement today, and that she has changed her view in advance of the debate. There is now cross-party agreement on the vital issue of helping the most vulnerable refugees of all, whose lives have been wrecked in the Syrian conflict and who are struggling to cope with that trauma in the region’s refugee camps.
	There has long been cross-party agreement that Britain should do its bit in supporting the region. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition joined together before Christmas to describe the “urgent humanitarian issue” that
	“transcends the differences of party politics.”
	They stood together to say:
	“The fate of an entire generation of children hangs in the balance. We must all do everything we can to help them.”
	They also urged other countries to do more. Indeed, the British Government have rightly led the way as the second biggest donor, providing development support, food for nearly 200,000 people a month across Syria and cooking and blankets for more than 300,000 people. I pay tribute to the Department for International Development for its work. The British people have also shown immense generosity, donating £20 million to the Disasters Emergency Committee Syria crisis appeal.
	We know that more than 2 million refugees have fled Syria into neighbouring countries, particularly Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq, and that more than half of them are children. Those who are still trapped in Syria are suffering even greater ordeals—bitter torture, executions, rape and violations—that are leaving terrible scars on a generation. There has always been cross-party agreement that the majority of refugees should be supported in the region, which is why we need a determined peace process so that people can eventually be returned to their homes. However, that relies on the immense generosity of those four neighbouring countries, which face considerable pressure as a result of the crisis. That is why it is so important for us to show those countries our support and for nations much further afield to do what they can to help.

Nia Griffith: My right hon. Friend will have heard what the Home Secretary said in her statement. My right hon. Friend mentions the immense pressure on the countries neighbouring Syria, which are
	welcoming hundreds of thousands of refugees. Does she recognise that there is a real fear that they could close their borders? Will she call on the Home Secretary to reconsider the issue of solidarity with the UNHCR, through which we can give them the assurances that will prevent them from closing their borders?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The UN raised with us how important it was that the countries providing the greatest support and generosity to Syria as neighbours should not feel that other countries across the world had turned their backs. That was one of the most important reasons for being part of the support for the programme. I will come later to her point about the UN programme, which is particularly important.

John Redwood: Will the Leader of the Opposition use his good offices with the French President? It seems that the French contribution to overseas aid has been tiny compared with the UK’s, and France is surely in a good position to help.

Yvette Cooper: As I have just said, the three party leaders jointly called on countries across the world to do more on aid, and it is right that we should continue to do so. France has signed up to the UN programme to take around 500 refugees and provide assistance for the most vulnerable people in the region, which is also right. We want countries across the world to work with the UN and international organisations to provide assistance to those who are most desperate.
	As the UN has made clear, some of the most vulnerable refugees are struggling to cope and survive in the camps. It told us about women who have been badly raped and abused, and who are at risk of further abuse in the camps. There are children with no one to look after them whose parents have been killed and relatives lost, and those who have been tortured and are still enduring terrible mental and physical distress. We need to provide help now for those people as a matter of our common humanity.

Jonathan Djanogly: Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that in Turkey, for instance, the significant majority of refugees do not live in the camps? Of 700,000 thousand refugees, only 200,000 are in the camps, and children who are outside the camps are the ones not getting the education.

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and that is also the case in Lebanon where refugees living in towns and villages now make up a sizeable proportion of the Lebanese population. Some of the vulnerable refugees that the UN has identified are within the camps, but he is right to say that there will be people in other circumstances who are also experiencing great distress. I know he will agree that many of those refugees want to return to their homes and stay in the region, but it is right that we provide additional assistance to those who are most vulnerable.

Stephen Twigg: My right hon. Friend will have heard during the statement my raising with the Home Secretary the plight of LGBT refugees from Syria, drawing attention to the work of
	Human Rights Watch in identifying the specific issues that those people face. Will she address that issue in her remarks?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point and I have specifically discussed that issue with the UN. It told me that it is keen to ensure that support is provided, and it gave the example of young gay men who have suffered homophobic abuse and persecution, and who may need additional assistance. That is why it is important to include LGBT issues in our consideration of vulnerable refugees who may need additional sanctuary elsewhere and outside the region.
	We should rightly provide sanctuary alongside other countries across the world. No one country can shoulder this alone, and we should work together and urge others to join us. France, Germany, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, the USA, Canada, Australia and many other countries are helping to provide sanctuary. That is why Britain must also do its bit and why it would have been wrong for it to turn its back.

Seema Malhotra: I thank my right hon. Friend for all the work she has done over the past couple of weeks in highlighting this issue and working with charities and organisations outside Parliament. Does she agree that the UK taking in refugees—as the Government have now stated we will—is a mark of our responsibility in the world and of our need to lead efforts and lead by example? A constituent wrote to me stating:
	“I feel…very concerned at the UK’s refusal to accept displaced persons…We are shamed by the actions of other countries.”
	That is a sad thing for a church in my constituency to be saying.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We must not only urge other countries to do more, but do our bit and show that we stand together in humanitarian causes right across the world. We are stronger if we stand together, and it says something about who we are as a country.

Jeremy Corbyn: I compliment my right hon. Friend on the motion she has tabled and the effect it has had. Will she return to the need for efficiency in dealing with the refugee crisis? Surely it would be desirable if the UK were part of the UNHCR process, rather than trying to set up something that appears to be separate but complementary.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. There is a strong case for being part of that UN programme, and I will come on to that point. Indeed, it was the UN who asked us to help in the first place, and it is right that we should respond to that in the most effective way, rather than setting up parallel programmes.
	Many other countries are participating. France, Austria and the Netherlands are proving sanctuary for several hundred people, which is similar to the levels of support that the Home Secretary has confirmed she expects to help. Germany and the US are taking many more refugees, but with all our countries standing together,
	we are not far off the 30,000 places that the UN has asked for. That is the power of countries working together. Although each country itself may offer limited support, it adds up to substantial humanitarian relief for the most desperate people in the world.
	When we called for this debate seven days ago, the Government and Home Secretary held a different position on helping the refugees, and it is right that they have now changed that position. I suspect that the Immigration Minister may be glad that he is not responding to this debate, since he had to reply to the urgent question last week when his position was different. As you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, as a result of strong support for the UN programme from all parties—including many on the Back Benches who raised their concerns as part of that urgent question last week—the Government have changed their position.

Angus MacNeil: The right hon. Lady mentions countries working together, and we know that in the UK the Government have put forward an arbitrary figure of 100,000 migrants as their target. Surely refugees should not be included in that arbitrary political figure. That would then give the Government far more room for manoeuvre in order to do the right thing and the humanitarian thing.

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say in response to the Home Secretary’s statement that I think there is a case for removing refugees from the net migration target. Refugees and those seeking sanctuary are a different issue to those who come as migrants to work and may have homes they can return to and are in a different situation.

Angus Robertson: The right hon. Lady will have heard me ask the Home Secretary to account for the difference in the scale of ambition between the numbers of refugees being taken in by the UK and by Germany. Given that the UK and Germany are among the largest contributors to humanitarian aid, does the right hon. Lady have any explanation for such a gap in ambition between the UK and Germany on the refugee total?

Yvette Cooper: I do not know the detailed discussions that the Home Secretary has had with the UN on the scale of support needed, but the UN has asked for 30,000 places to be provided across the world. Even without the British contribution, the UN was already well on the way to reaching those sorts of numbers, and the contribution that the UK needs to make can still be significant, even if it is more limited. Each country needs to look at the kinds of support it can provide, and also at support that can be provided in the region. My point is that some small countries are offering places for 50 or 100 refugees, and when all countries do their bit, even if places are limited, that still adds up to a significant international humanitarian effort. It is right for us to support that.
	I pay tribute to the charities that have campaigned for the change of heart by the Government: the Refugee Council, Amnesty International, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, Christian Aid, Muslim Aid, Oxfam, Save the Children and many more, as well as hon. Members across Parliament who called on the
	Government to change their mind. Although Labour chose this topic for an Opposition day—I am glad that the Government responded to the prospect of this debate—we recognise the extent of cross-party support and the significance that the views of Back Benchers have had in this debate. This is a good example of Parliament raising and being thoughtful about an issue that was not getting considerable media interest before being taken very seriously in Parliament, and the Government have changed course as a result. I also recognise the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) that just because we cannot give sanctuary to everyone does not mean that we should give it to no one. He has also been clear in supporting the Government’s change of view.
	Many hon. Members have raised the nature of the Government’s plans and asked why they have decided to set out a programme that is different from the UN programme. The Opposition welcome the Government’s approach and the support that the Government are due to provide. I welcome and agree with the Home Secretary’s emphasis on women who have suffered terrible sexual violence, and her recognition of torture victims. I should also emphasise the point many hon. Members have made about abandoned and vulnerable children who have lost parents and family and other support.
	I am glad that the Home Secretary has said she will work closely with the UN, but I am still unclear why she is so uncomfortable about signing up to the UN programme. She says that she does not want quotas, but there is no need to set a quota within the UN programme. Indeed, Britain is already part of the UN mandate programme, which helps a limited number of refugees from around the world who have family in the UK who will support them, and that programme states clearly that it has no quota. The US committed to operate in the UN Syria programme and has set no quota. It has set no specific number and has said that it will work on a case-by-case basis according to need.
	The Home Secretary says she wants flexibility, yet the UN programme provides considerable flexibility for different countries to specify the kind of refugees in whom they have expertise and choose to help. For example, in the similar UN gateway programme, Britain specified that we wanted to settle Iraqi interpreters who had helped our troops. We had that level specification within a UN programme.

Catherine McKinnell: Many of my constituents who have contacted me in the past few weeks were extremely disappointed with the Government’s decision not to sign up to the UNHCR programme. My right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary seems to be gearing up for the same question to which my constituents want an answer. The Government’s announcement is welcome, but what would be required for Britain to sign up to the UNHCR programme?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend’s point is important. We simply do not understand the reason for not being part of the UN programme. As we understand it, the UNHCR will do the work of identifying the most vulnerable refugees. It will provide that support on the ground—that is exactly what it does as part of the UN Syria programme. Many of the elements of the
	Government’s programme—the principles that the Home Secretary set out earlier—are principles that can be adopted within the UN programme. Other countries have done so. It is unclear why the Home Secretary is so resistant to biting the bullet and why she wants the UK programme, which looks an awful lot like the UN programme, to have another name.
	There is an explicit advantage of being part of the UN programme. If the Home Secretary wants to call on countries that have not signed up to the UN proposal to do so, such as Italy, Portugal, Poland and New Zealand, it will be much easier if she does not distance herself from the UN programme. Britain has the aid programmes and bureaucracy to run a parallel programme, but most of those countries do not. We should therefore encourage them to work with the UN and to be part of the UN programme. Surely there is an advantage in saying that the world should pull together. Britain should not go it alone, because we believe that no country alone should have to shoulder the burden of any serious humanitarian crisis. We believe in everyone doing their bit and sharing the challenge.
	We will not fall out over this today. The most important thing is that the Home Secretary has come forward with a proposal that will help vulnerable Syrian refugees. The most important thing for the Opposition is that Britain is doing its bit and providing that assistance—that specialised assistance—to those who are most desperate and in need of her help, but I urge her to look again at partnership with the UN.
	Let me turn to one wider issue before I close my remarks—other hon. Members have raised it. Hon. Members agree that there is a big difference between, on the one hand, immigration policy and border control, and on the other, providing sanctuary for those fleeing persecution. We agree with strong controls at our border, and with stronger measures to prevent illegal immigration and limit those coming to work, but that is different from the question of giving safe refuge to those in fear of their lives.
	The Home Secretary has set a target to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands. That target is going up, not down, and the Home Office is under pressure to turn it around. However, the target includes refugees. Surely there is a serious problem if Home Office officials are inclined to resist any resettlement programme whatever the circumstances because it will affect the net migration target, which they are under such pressure to meet. I therefore ask her to give serious consideration to the net migration target to make it clear to everyone that there is a big difference between the approach to immigration and the approach Britain has rightly taken to refugees today.
	Britain has a long history of providing sanctuary for those fleeing persecution. In the week of Holocaust memorial day, we remember events such as the Kindertransport, which hon. Members have mentioned, and which provided sanctuary and homes for Jewish children fleeing the Nazis at the beginning of the second world war. We have also seen the contribution that refugees have gone on to make to our country, building our businesses, enriching our culture and supporting our public services.

Caroline Lucas: I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for giving way, especially when she is winding up her speech. Vulnerable
	and desperate Syrian refugees who fled Syria to escape horrific violence find themselves in neighbouring countries, some of which simply cannot cope. Does she share my fear that they are being driven into the hands of human traffickers? We have seen boats off Lampedusa. Does she agree that that is yet another reason why we need to ensure that the number of spaces we offer in this country is as ambitious as possible?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Lady is right to describe the risk of vulnerable refugees getting caught up with human traffickers. The Home Secretary rightly referred to people coming to Britain to claim asylum. Some certainly have, but travelling across a continent and being able to claim asylum is difficult for the most vulnerable. When people are vulnerable, they are at huge risk from those who would exploit and abuse their situation. Part of the reason for the UN Syria refugee programme was to avoid the challenges they face—some people are simply too vulnerable to travel and to make their journey elsewhere.
	We should recognise the huge contribution that those to whom we have given sanctuary in generations past have gone on to make in our country and their contribution to who we are today. Last weekend, I was in a community in west Yorkshire talking to police officers. One police community support officer who was out on the beat told me that Britain had given him safe refuge when he was 11 years old. His family were fleeing Bosnia. Now, he keeps Britain and people in Britain safe. That is his job. His wife, also a Bosnian refugee, is an intensive care nurse in the NHS, caring for those who are most vulnerable in our hospitals, just as this country helped her family when she was vulnerable 20 years ago.
	Our long tradition of giving that help and sanctuary, and of providing refuge for the most desperate, is a testimony to what kind of country Britain is and wants to be. That is why we should stand together in Parliament to support that tradition this afternoon.

Theresa May: No one chooses to be a refugee. The women and men pouring across Syria’s borders are the innocent victims of a conflict in which the vast majority have played no part. In many cases, they flee because their towns have been pulverised, their children’s schools destroyed, their hospitals bombed and their supplies of food and water cut off. They have lost relatives. Many have been injured. Some have survived the first use of chemical weapons this century. Their suffering, inflicted on people who are no different from us in their desire for peace, security and freedom, is hard for any of us to imagine.
	As hon. Members in all parts of the House have said, this is a humanitarian catastrophe with no end currently in sight. At stake are the lives of millions of innocent people and security in the middle east, all of which has an impact on us here in the UK. The question is: what can we do, as the United Kingdom, to address these problems? The answer, above all, as I made clear in my statement earlier today, and as my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have also explained, must be that we work to end the conflict. Her
	Majesty’s Government are using diplomacy and humanitarian aid to carry out that work, and are taking measures to protect the security of our own country.
	The United Kingdom is taking a leading role in addressing this crisis. At the United Nations Security Council, we and our partners are urging Russia to work with us to end the conflict, and we are pressing for full and unfettered humanitarian access. As members of the core group of the Friends of Syria, we are instrumental in supporting a moderate opposition, without which there can be no political settlement in that country, only the murderous tyranny offered by Assad or the warped ideology of terrorist extremists and foreign fighters seeking to exploit the violence. In addition, we are saving countless lives through our humanitarian assistance.
	Britain has indeed been leading the world in responding to the disaster. We are the second largest bilateral donor, after the United States. We are providing £600 million for the Syrian relief effort and to help neighbouring countries, which are supporting those who have sought refuge there, to meet the needs of those refugees and bolster their own security. This effort has united support across the House. Right hon. and hon. Members have rightly expressed their considerable concern, and I commend those on all sides of the House who have done much to raise the issue and keep the plight of innocent Syrians in our thoughts.

Glyn Davies: I thank the Home Secretary for taking an intervention. Her doing so allows me to say how much I appreciate the statement she is making today and the way in which it has unified the House on the significant part of her speech. That will be welcomed in Wales, where there is a long tradition and history of supporting peoples who are being displaced and threatened by humanitarian crisis.

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and for his reference to the tradition in Wales of supporting people who are refugees from humanitarian conflicts.
	Earlier this month a team of MPs, led by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), travelled to the Syrian border in Turkey to see how refugees there are being helped by humanitarian aid. The Select Committee on International Development also held a special oral evidence session focusing on the British response, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for his campaigning on this issue. It is clear that everyone in the House understands the obligation this country and the international community has towards helping the Syrian people during this time of great crisis.
	Last week the Prime Minister was clear that given the scale of the current refugee crisis, with more than 11 million Syrians in dire need of humanitarian aid, the greatest need is in the region—that is where we can make the deepest impact. He was equally clear that, where there are particularly compelling cases of vulnerable people at grave risk, we will look at those cases. Earlier today, I announced to the House that, following consultations with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees office in London, the Government will be launching a new programme to provide emergency sanctuary in the UK for particularly vulnerable displaced Syrians, including women and girls at risk, survivors of torture and violence, and children at risk or in need of medical care.

Margot James: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement earlier today on providing emergency sanctuary for vulnerable refugees in co-operation with the UNHCR. I wonder whether, now or later in her speech, she can tell the House what role she envisages for the voluntary sector at a local level in the effort to help refugees with their transition to our country?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. It is indeed the case that the voluntary sector will play an important role. The prime focus of interaction in various parts of the country—on, for example, ensuring that accommodation is available—will be local authorities, but voluntary groups will have a very important role to play. Indeed, it is part of the Government’s ethos to look to work with voluntary groups, because of the quality of support that they can give in such circumstances.

John Leech: Following on from that point, may I urge the Home Office to discuss with the sizeable Syrian community around the UK what help and support it can give to incoming refugees?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for that important point. When people come to another country in these circumstances, when they are fleeing from violence and are particularly vulnerable, working with those who have a similar background and who will be able to welcome them here to the UK is an important part of our work.

Angus MacNeil: Although the right hon. Lady has not confirmed a date for when people might arrive, I hope the door is open from now. Given the importance of this matter, has she discussed with the Scottish Government how they might play their full part and how the Scottish national health service might be ready to deal with the needs of refugees if and when they come to Scotland, which I hope they do?

Theresa May: I am happy to say to the hon. Gentleman that, as I indicated earlier, we will be talking to both the Welsh and Scottish Governments. My hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration will be writing to the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland Administrations on this matter.
	I recognise that a number of hon. Members were in the House earlier for my statement, but I reiterate that the vulnerable person relocation scheme will be based on three principles. First, to ensure our assistance helps those refugees at greatest risk, it will focus on individual cases where evacuation from the region is the only option. Secondly, it will be run in addition to the two resettlement programmes we currently operate in partnership with the UNHCR: the UK’s gateway protection resettlement programme, which resettles a number of refugees from a small number of targeted locations every year; and the smaller mandate resettlement scheme, which is designed to resettle individual refugees who have been recognised by UNHCR and have a close family member in the UK who is willing to accommodate them. Thirdly, because we want to focus our assistance on the most vulnerable people, we do not intend to subscribe to a quota scheme. Instead, our programme will run in parallel with the UNHCR’s own Syria
	humanitarian admission programme, and will be carried out in close consultation with UNHCR offices in London, Geneva and in the region.
	I want to be clear that we are not signing up wholesale to the UNHCR’s existing scheme, because we think we can best contribute through a complementary scheme focusing on the most vulnerable cases. Our scheme is, however, entirely consistent with the UNHCR’s wider programme and we have its full support. Indeed, the UNHCR’s representative to the UK, Roland Schilling, has welcomed
	“the announcement of the UK government to provide refuge to some of the most vulnerable Syrian refugees, in cooperation with UNHCR.”
	He has said:
	“This decision will help to provide much needed solutions for vulnerable Syrian refugees many of whom have been deeply traumatised and face immense hardship. It is also a concrete and important gesture of solidarity and burden sharing with the countries neighbouring Syria as they continue to bear the brunt of the refugee crisis.”
	Others, including the chief executive of the Refugee Council, have also welcomed our action today.
	With widespread support for our approach, including from the UNHCR, I hope the shadow Home Secretary and other hon. Members will agree that this scheme is clearly within the spirit of today’s motion. Now is not the time for politics, but for sending a clear message that the United Kingdom will continue to do its bit to help those who are suffering. On that basis, I hope that nobody thinks it necessary or appropriate to divide the House on this issue.

Catherine McKinnell: I thank the Home Secretary for giving way. There is absolutely no doubt that today’s announcement will be welcomed by everyone in this House and by constituents who have contacted us with their concerns. Does she accept, however, that there are still concerns about the UK’s failure to sign up to the UNHCR programme, and will she acknowledge that those concerns have not been fully addressed by what she has said today?

Theresa May: I have to say to the hon. Lady that the key people we should look to, to see if they are concerned, are those in the UNHCR. The UNHCR has been absolutely clear that it does not have any concerns about us not signing up to its programme. It has welcomed the scheme that we are putting together. I think that across the country people will welcome the fact that the Government have recognised the plight of Syrian refugees and have been willing to take this action, particularly with a focus on those who are most vulnerable.
	In addition to the scheme announced today, we continue to consider asylum claims under our normal rules. We have a proud tradition of giving sanctuary to people in genuine need, and since the crisis began, we have taken in nearly 3,500 asylum seekers—the fourth highest in the EU—with 1,100 Syrian nationals recognised as refugees in the year to September 2013. Where Syrian nationals were working or studying in this country when the conflict broke out, we have also made it easier for them to stay here until there is a resolution to the crisis.
	As Ministers have said consistently, we believe that the best way of reaching the greatest number of people is by focusing humanitarian efforts on the region, and
	that is the only realistic way in which the rights of the vast majority of displaced persons can be safeguarded. Let me outline what the £600 million that Britain is providing is helping to provide.

Nigel Dodds: I commend the Home Secretary on today’s very welcome announcement, but I want to ask her about the wider issue of humanitarian aid. I visited Zaatari refugee camp not long ago and witnessed at first hand the extent of the UK aid to Syrian refugees. Does she share the concern that I and others, including many of my constituents, have about the level of help being given by other EU member states and others in the international community? As well has taking refugees, they need to contribute more financially to help those in the greatest need.

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We can be proud of what we have done. As I indicated earlier, our £600 million is the second largest bilateral contribution—second only to the United States—and I agree that other countries need to look at what help they are providing.

Angus Robertson: rose—

Theresa May: I suspect the hon. Gentleman might make the point he made earlier, but I will give way to him.

Angus Robertson: I want to help the Home Secretary with a suggestion I have made before to the Foreign Secretary. Why do the Government or international organisations not keep a running total showing which countries have pledged and which have already transferred funds, making it all much more transparent?

Theresa May: We have the totals of what has been pledged by countries around the world. For example, the UK, with its £600 million, is, as I have said, the second largest contributor, whereas Germany, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier, is contributing the equivalent of £350 million—less than us—in humanitarian aid.
	Thanks to our funding, food, water, shelter and medicine are being provided to hundreds of thousands of displaced Syrians. Almost 320,000 people a month are being given food inside Syria or in the surrounding region; more than 900,000 people a month are being provided with drinking water; almost 316,000 medical consultations have been enabled; and 300,000 people inside Syria have received basic life-saving items, such as blankets, shelter and clothing. We are also acutely aware of the impact the crisis is having on the lives of children, 1 million of whom are now refugees. We are leading the No Lost Generation initiative with UNICEF and others, which is allocating £30 million to provide protection, trauma care and education for children affected by the crisis.
	At the beginning of my speech, I mentioned the need for immediate and unfettered access so that all those in need inside Syria, including those trapped in besieged or hard-to-reach places, can receive aid. The deliberate obstruction of aid has been a particularly sickening aspect of this conflict, and there are reports of people
	being allowed to starve to death, which is utterly inhumane. Humanitarian aid must be allowed to reach all those in need, and we will not let up until that is done in the besieged city of Homs and across the country.
	One of the considerable consequences of this conflict has been the immense pressure placed on Syria’s neighbouring countries. More than 2.3 million Syrians fleeing Assad’s brutality have sought refuge in countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Egypt and Iraq. I cannot commend highly enough the humanitarian spirit demonstrated by these countries, and we cannot underestimate the strain placed on their infrastructure. Through the humanitarian assistance we are providing in the region, we can help them better to shoulder that responsibility. In the face of the vast scale of this crisis, the resettlement of small numbers of refugees from those countries will provide them with only very limited relief, whereas funding to support a larger number of refugees in those places will help ease the stress on their systems.
	We have also pledged support to a regional development and protection programme that will provide protection in neighbouring countries to those displaced from Syria, making it easier for them to return home when it is safe to do so. In addition to the £600 million we are providing in humanitarian relief, Britain is also providing £12 million in development funding from the Arab Partnership economic fund to Jordan. It is clear that the best and most immediate way to help displaced Syrians caught up in this terrible conflict is to focus on the region and neighbouring countries, thus reaching a far greater number of people and minimising the trauma and the displacement so many have already endured.
	Britain can and should be proud of the role we are playing in supporting the Syrian people during a time of great crisis. As I have made clear, British money is helping to provide food, water and shelter to hundreds of thousands of displaced Syrians every day. We are providing humanitarian assistance to people inside and outside Syria, working hard to achieve improved access to humanitarian aid and pressing Assad’s allies to push the regime to do much more, and through our relocation scheme, we will provide emergency sanctuary to some of the most vulnerable caught up in the war, including children and victims of torture and sexual violence.
	The only real way, however, to ensure that the horror, the misery and the killing stop is through an agreed political settlement. That is why the Government will continue in their determination to urge all those involved to find a peaceful and sustainable solution to this crisis, and it is why we must keep up the pressure on Assad and his allies. Only when the fighting stops can the conditions for a solution to the humanitarian crisis be created, and only then will the men, women and children who have suffered so much and been so cruelly torn from their homes be able to return in safety to their homes and livelihoods, which is what the vast majority of Syrians so dearly wish.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. As will be obvious to the House, a large number of Members wish to contribute in this short debate. I have therefore imposed a six-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Gerald Kaufman: Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship for the first time.
	My parents were refugees. They came to this country from Polish ghettos to escape religious and political persecution. Subsequently, most of their families were murdered by the Nazis in the Holocaust, which has been commemorated this week, but despite the trauma they were able to build new lives here. In the summer of 1939, my parents took into their home a young girl who was one of the last to escape on the Kindertransport. She, too, was able to build a life in this country, and my most recent information is that she has a grand-daughter at Manchester university. Helping refugees has lifelong benefits.
	The current situation is being watched with anxiety and distress by the Syrian community in Manchester, with which I recently attended a meeting held at the British Muslim heritage centre in my constituency in memory of Dr Abbas Khan, whose murder caused such distress. If my postbag is any guide, that anxiety is shared by those of all ethnicities in my constituency and more widely. There is special concern for Palestinian refugees, who are refugees twice over—from their own country and now from a war for which they have no responsibility, with which they have no connection and in which they have not taken a side. They are enduring death and deprivation in Syria.
	The al-Yarmouk camp, just outside Damascus, has been under siege for six months. It was inhabited by more than 155,000 Palestinian refugees, but of those fewer than 20,000 now remain. A list has been published, which is in my possession, of the names of those who have died in the camp and the causes of death. Again and again, that cause is listed as starvation. Refugees in this camp are surviving on grass, animal feed and spices dissolved in water. Extreme human suffering in primitive conditions is the norm. Only 200 food parcels have been delivered to the remaining 20,000 people marooned in the camp.
	Some 560,000 Palestinian refugees are living in Syria, and more than half of them have been displaced. Their restrictive travel documents mean that the majority would be unable to leave the country and seek safety abroad even if there were an opportunity for them to do so. Neighbouring countries—I pay tribute to them for the help that they have provided—are overwhelmed by Syrian refugees who have managed to get into their territory.

Jeremy Corbyn: Let me compliment my right hon. Friend on his speech, and on the work that he has done on behalf of Palestinian refugees. Is it not also the case that tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees have recently arrived in Syria, mainly from Iraq but also from other countries, and that they are in a very dangerous and very vulnerable situation? Some have not even received permanent settlement in Syria, and are therefore particularly vulnerable both to the civil war and to any refugee programme that may ignore them in the future.

Gerald Kaufman: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. No one—apart from the Syrian Government and another authority to which I shall refer in a moment—can be faulted for the efforts that are being made, but the situation on the ground is exceptionally difficult.
	Although, as the Home Secretary has pointed out, Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq have done their best to help, one neighbouring country that has not made the tiniest effort to do so is Israel. A large number of Israel’s population are refugees and descendants of refugees, and one would have thought that it would have some kind of conscience about the plight of refugees who are, in some instances, within yards of its borders, but the callous Government display no concern. The plight of the Palestinian refugees is their direct responsibility.
	No one pretends that this situation can be dealt with easily. I join others in paying tribute to the Department for International Development for providing such huge amounts of money: that is the kind of thing that needs to be done, both because of its direct impact and because it demonstrates the determination of all the people of this country, and all the parties in the House, to do something about this ghastly situation. It is essential that we do not look back on it with the gnawing misgiving that we could have done more.

Richard Ottaway: The scale of the human tragedy in Syria is horrendous. More than 130,000 are dead, including thousands of children; there are documented cases of torture and summary execution; about 9.5 million men, women and children are in need of humanitarian help; and 2.3 million refugees, half of them children, are spilling into neighbouring countries—Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Lebanon. Those countries are absorbing 97% of the massive influx of refugees, and it is threatening their stability. Lebanon is on course to receive 1.6 million refugees by the end of this year, which, for that small country, is the equivalent of 20 million refugees coming to the United Kingdom. Terrorism is back in Iraq, which has witnessed a resurgence of al-Qaeda. The war in Syria is inflaming its own sectarian battles.
	Every day in Syria, the death toll, the atrocities, and the numbers of displaced persons and refugees are climbing. Against that relentless backdrop, the UNHCR wants countries to take 30,000 Syrian refugees in addition to the current resettlement quotas. That is a drop in the ocean. The United Kingdom has taken more than 1,000 Syrian asylum seekers this year. We have committed ourselves to helping some of the most vulnerable Syrian refugees, and I welcome the Government’s announcement today, which confirmed that.
	It is absolutely right for us not to commit ourselves to arbitrary numbers. A quota of 500, 1,000 or even 5,000 Syrian refugees may achieve much in humanitarian terms, but in overall terms it achieves very little, because it does not tackle the root cause of the problem. As the Home Secretary pointed out in her excellent speech, the only meaningful solution to the refugee crisis—the only way in which to secure a better future for countless innocent Syrians—is a political solution. The refugee crisis has to be considered as part of an overarching foreign policy, and not in isolation. Talks in Geneva this week show us how difficult a task that will be. There are about 1,200 different rebel groups in Syria who have no interest in negotiating. Our best hope of dialogue is of dialogue between Syria’s national coalition and the Government, but they will not talk face to face: self-interest is getting in the way.
	With uncompromising preconditions being dished out on both sides, the scope of Geneva II is inevitably limited. Even the deal that was hammered out to aid trapped residents of the war-torn city of Homs now appears to be threatened. The rebel alliance on the ground has issued further demands which it says must be met before anyone can be evacuated. There is nothing new there—this is politics—but it is costing lives and livelihoods.
	Whether we like it or not, political progress in Syria will never succeed without directly engaging the puppeteers of this war of attrition. If Iran and the Gulf states withdrew their cash and supplies of arms on the Syrian battlefield, refugees would have some prospect of a safe return. We must stop the supplies of deadly arms, and put pressure on the armed militias that are terrorising Syrian communities. The United States and Russia have discussed a ceasefire in Syria, and only a ceasefire will make the delivery of humanitarian aid to the besieged, rebel-held areas possible as the civil war intensifies. That has already happened in some parts of the country, but millions are still trapped and under siege, and beyond the reach of help.
	We have our work cut out for us in trying to ensure that humanitarian aid reaches those who really need it. That may well mean allowing the regime to transport food and medical equipment to areas that it controls, no matter how unpalatable discussions with it may be. Better systems should be introduced to improve the conditions of refugees in camps: reports of domestic violence, sexual abuse and rape from camps on the border are sickening, and more needs to be done.
	I am proud that the Government are leading by example. The United Kingdom is the world’s second largest bilateral aid donor, and British taxpayers’ money is providing food, shelter, water and medicine for hundreds of thousands of people. However, we should be urging other countries to carry their fair share of funding the effort in Syria. They should be contributing more to the humanitarian effort where the refugees need our help most. Given that there are more than 2 million of them now and that the number is expected to increase to 4 million in the coming year, calling on the UK to agree to a fixed number seriously misses the point.

Angus Robertson: The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Mr António Guterres, has said:
	“Syria has become the great tragedy of this century—a disgraceful humanitarian calamity with suffering and displacement unparalleled in recent history.”
	I want to focus on attitudes towards refugees, and to ask whether we are doing everything that we can and should be doing.
	This week we marked Holocaust memorial day, and the theme this year was “journeys”. We remembered those who had sought refuge, safety and a better chance of survival. At the United Kingdom commemoration here in central London, we heard personal testimonies from holocaust survivors of the Nazi death camps, Rwanda, Cambodia, and Bosnia Herzegovina. The Leader of the Opposition spoke very movingly about how
	members of his family had survived the holocaust, and about those who had not. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government spoke with conviction about the contribution of holocaust survivors who were able to start new lives in Britain; we heard something about that from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman).
	I was sitting next to a lady from Leipzig, who asked me “Will we ever learn the lessons of history?” She got out of Nazi Germany just in time, on the Kindertransport, finding refuge in the UK, but many did not. We rightly laud the efforts that were made and saved 10,000 children. It was the Jewish community, the Quakers and others who organised the evacuation, and many Jewish and non-Jewish families hosted the children. But why was it that only children were allowed into the UK? The parents were not given refuge. We should remember that many past, and sadly some present, attitudes to the treatment of refugees, including in the UK, are difficult to justify. We should never forget that, after the Anschluss in March 1938, rather than relaxing entry requirements for Austrian Jews, the British Government tightened them, introducing strictly controlled visas precisely to restrict their numbers. With the benefit of hindsight, we understand that more than 65,000 Austrian Jews were murdered in the holocaust.
	Today we are debating a cross-party motion tabled by the official Opposition which acknowledges the positive UK Government role in supporting people from Syria in their region, but are we doing enough to help refugees and are we learning the lessons from history? More than 2.1 million refugees have been registered by the UNHCR in Syria’s four neighbouring states. Hundreds of thousands more are known to be living outside Syria’s borders without access to aid. The UNHCR has expressly asked that the international community accommodate 30,000 refugees. Belatedly deciding to take a number of hundreds of refugees, the UK Government have acknowledged that we all have a responsibility to give refuge and assistance in the UK. I welcome that. However, according to the latest UNHCR figures, the following number of refugees are being accepted by other countries: Germany, 11,000; Canada, 1,300; Sweden, 1,200; Norway, 1,000; France, 500; Australia, 500; Austria, 500; and Finland, 500. The list goes on. Are we doing everything we can to help as many people as possible?
	Amnesty International is right to describe the Syrian refugee crisis as an international failure. Positive political leadership from the UK and others in the international community is about financial support to assist refugees in Syria and the displaced refugees in neighbouring countries. But, after assessing needs and calculating what can be done in the region and what needs to be supported internationally, the UN is saying that the international community must accommodate 30,000 refugees.
	We have also been challenged in wider areas—that we should share responsibility for refugees from Syria more equally, in particular through significantly increasing the number of resettlement and humanitarian admission places, over and above annual resettlement quotas.

Bob Stewart: In April 1993, I took an orphan girl into my house when I was the British commander in Bosnia. My soldiers looked after
	her. Her parents and her brother had been shot dead in front of her. We thought that we should take her out of the country and that that was the right thing to do. In the end, we found a distant uncle and she stayed in Bosnia. The Home Secretary has said that that is the best option. We should bring people out of the region only if no other option is available to save their lives or look after them properly.

Angus Robertson: The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point. I underline my comments that, if the UN has assessed that there is a need to accommodate 30,000 people internationally, no doubt it has looked closely at all the factors to which the honourable and gallant Gentleman has referred.
	EU member states and the EU have been challenged to strengthen search and rescue capacity in the Mediterranean to identify boats in distress and assist those on board; ensure that those rescued are treated with dignity and that their human rights, including the right to seek asylum, are fully respected; and ensure the end of unlawful push-back operations that deny refugees and migrants their rights, particularly on the Greek-Turkish border. All countries receiving refugees from Syria have also been challenged to automatically provide all people fleeing Syria, including Palestinian refugees—this has been mentioned several times—who were resident in Syria, with a status giving them international protection. Countries receiving refugees from Syria should also facilitate family reunification for refugees from Syria, including by applying flexible criteria to take into account the nature and needs of different families.
	In these awful times for the poor people of Syria, it is right to provide aid and support in the region directly. It is also, however, a duty and humanitarian obligation to do whatever we can to help refugees closer to home. The lessons of history are plain to see. There will always be siren voices pandering to the lowest common denominator, who give a million reasons why we should not give refuge and accept people in need. The UK Government have belatedly accepted the case to accept a limited number of refugees. In times like these, we need political leadership to explain why helping refugees is the right thing to do and get on with it.

Alistair Burt: I am pleased to take part in the debate. I commend the motion and the way in which it was moved. I unreservedly welcome the efforts of the Home Secretary and many Front-Bench colleagues to respond to the crisis. I wanted to take part in the debate because the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who speaks for the Opposition, moved the motion in a conciliatory and considered manner. I thought over the past couple of weeks that that was not necessarily the tone being taken by people outside. I felt strongly that there was a danger that a Government who had done an extraordinary amount in relation to the crisis might end up on the wrong side of the argument.
	The Government’s basic position is absolutely correct, as all colleagues have tended to endorse. It is best to help in the region where people are concentrated, and the extraordinary efforts being made by neighbours have been helped by the most generous contribution that this country has ever made to such a crisis abroad.
	However, as times and needs change, a bit of flexibility is not always a bad thing. Therefore, the response to what the UN has been saying has been important.
	As all colleagues have said, it is important to work with the UN. We have been its biggest supporters in going around the world asking for higher contributions to meet its appeals. As colleagues have mentioned, a number of countries have not stumped up. It would have been difficult, had we done all this, if the UN had turned on us and said, “You’re not doing enough.” It is good, therefore, that we have reached this position. It is better than just taking a slightly smaller number of people. Targeting the people we can help most, particularly those caught up in sexual violence, bearing in mind all that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has done in relation to this, makes an even more important point. The help is targeted, and I think that the response has been absolutely right.
	On a wider issue, I too, as colleagues would know and expect, have visited those who have been working with refugees in Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan. There is hardly enough that we can say about the generosity and hospitality of those countries, or about the skill and expertise of our own aid workers—often technical specialists in the camps and outside. I visited a small town in Jordan where people had been decamped. They are in the local economy and that puts pressures on as well, to which we have been responding. However, the extraordinary skills that people have been displaying to assist those who work for the NGOs and who work through DFID, have all played a part. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done a tremendous job in keeping up interest in relation to that. Therefore, the combination of what the UK is giving by working locally and the response here has been particularly effective.
	One or two colleagues say that we should take special notice of Christian victims. I have not spoken much on the matter before. It was a policy I was looking after, but I want to make two or three quick points because it is an important issue. It is undeniably true that the Christian community in the middle east has been under particularly severe pressure in a region where lots of people have suffered, but the answer is not to single them out but to say that the rule of law has to protect all. The importance of that is that it is not being politically correct; it is ensuring that Christians are not identified with the false claim of the extremists that it is a western construct and a western religion. To give any sense to that and to say, however well meaning, that there is a welcome for them in a “Christian country” feeds that narrative and assists the extremists. Therefore, I urge colleagues and people outside who are rightly concerned about the Christian community to take a lead from his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and Prince Ghazi of Jordan, who are working with Muslim leaders in the region to recognise the particular issues facing Christians and to work through those leaders to provide relief there.
	I want to make a final point on the conflict itself—[Interruption.] The trick to avoiding coughing during a speech is not to eat yoghurt-flavoured peanuts to keep you going. It is not the yoghurt that gets you; it is the peanuts. I shall return to my serious point about the ending of the conflict. I was in Geneva yesterday with the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and I took the opportunity to meet one or two friends who were involved in the
	talks. The news coming out of the talks is poor. The situation is extremely tough: the Syrian regime does not feel the need to concede, because not enough pressure has been placed upon it.
	We are absolutely right to support the Syrian opposition coalition. As colleagues know, I take the view—one that is not shared by all—that they should be allowed a greater opportunity to have the means to defend themselves against the barbaric attacks, because changing the balance on the ground could help the negotiation process and thereby bring about a quicker end to the conflict. It is essential that we focus all our attention on that. Looking after the refugees is important but it is a symptom, not the cause.

Stephen Gilbert: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend’s analysis. Of course it is right that we should address the problem in the surrounding countries, but real success will involve getting humanitarian access into Syria as well. What more can we in this country do to put pressure on the regime to allow such access?

Alistair Burt: This is genuinely very difficult. The regime thinks that it is winning. We talk about there being no foreign intervention in Syria, but there is. The boots on the ground are from Iran and from Hezbollah, and support is coming from Russia. In addition, the Gulf countries have supported those groups that they believe to be in a position to remove the regime, but they should be focusing all that attention on the official opposition, rather than on the extremists. Starvation and sieges are being used as weapons, which is one of the reasons why it is difficult to get stuff into the country. The regime has played a desperate role in relation to the citizens who have been caught up in the conflict. I believe that extra pressure needs to be placed on the regime. We also need to work with Russia, because it is in that country’s interests that the conflict should end sooner rather than later. The sad truth is, however, that it will end only when that suits other people’s interests, and not, alas, the interests of the people of Syria. We should never lose sight of that fact.
	The support of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the people of Syria has been remarkable throughout the conflict, and it is important to stick with them. It is worth working in this way. Only this week, the Tunisian people approved a constitution after three years of difficulty but without the kind of turmoil that we have seen elsewhere. I still believe that, long term, the Arab awakening will work, but there is, alas, much pain still to be experienced in the region. What the United Kingdom is doing to relieve that pain is quite remarkable, and the Home Secretary deserves every praise for bringing forward her proposals today.

Tom Clarke: The Home Secretary is no longer in her place, but she will no doubt read what I am about to say. I had the privilege of asking her a question earlier, and I did so because I am interested in international development and in these important issues. I am the chair of the Friends of the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development
	and I am active in other such groups. I have been worried over the years about the link between the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office and, more recently, the link between DFID and the Home Office. My question was intended to draw out the thinking of the Home Office on these matters.
	I do not wish to appear ungrateful to the Home Secretary; her responsibilities as she sees them are for matters such as border control. Nor do I wish to speak for the Secretary of State for International Development, who is perfectly capable of speaking for herself, but I imagine that DFID would identify its priority as dealing with humanitarian practicalities based on the information that it receives from those on the ground, day after day. We had an example of that in the House during DFID questions last week, when I put a question to the Secretary of State about the impact of the Syrian refugee problem on education in Lebanon. She was able to tell the House that she had visited schools in Lebanon the previous week, and she gave us an informed account of what was taking place.
	It is because I want to see a co-ordinated approach to these matters that I am taking part in the debate today. I welcome the fact that considerable progress has been made, even since last week. I believe that today’s motion has made a contribution to that progress, as have the aid agencies and the non-governmental organisations that have been pushing hard on the humanitarian issue. The pressure that they have brought to bear is understandable, given that 6 million people have been displaced as a result of what is going on in Syria.
	Organisations such as CAFOD and Christian Aid are telling us that there are two major issues. First, the British Government should be seen to be playing a leadership role in supporting vulnerable people by offering resettlement to some of the most vulnerable refugees; secondly, such action would send a message of solidarity to the leaders of the regional Governments. When I listened to the Home Secretary today, I think I knew where she was coming from, but I ask her to try to understand the enormous pressure that those neighbouring countries are facing as they try to deal with the refugee problems. Countries such as Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq are facing great problems, and the NGOs working there are under huge strain as they try to deal with the impact of 2 million refugees.
	Just before Christmas, CAFOD held an Advent meeting. I want to quote the words of Father Faddoul, who works in Lebanon and is president of Caritas Lebanon, a partner organisation of CAFOD. He said:
	“Many Syrian refugees are now living in desperate conditions: families are struggling to survive in tents surrounded by snow, sometimes without shoes or warm clothes. Many children are unable to go to school. The crisis has caused huge instability here in Lebanon and across the region. We are living on a knife-edge.”
	The House needs to bear that in mind.
	It would be ungracious not to recognise that Britain is the second-largest contributor, and that we have tried to give a lead in this situation, but I also want to put on record that the UNHCR has appealed for western Governments to accept 30,000 of the most vulnerable refugees from the region. In doing so, we would be joining countries such as Australia, Austria, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden and the United States of America, and demonstrating our
	commitment to a shared responsibility. We would all welcome that. We have made considerable progress today, but I hope that the Secretary of State will not mind my repeating that point.

Menzies Campbell: I thank the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) for her generous reference to me, but as she herself pointed out later, we have today seen the confident assertion of the responsibility and authority of the House of Commons, which has proved capable of bringing about a change of heart and a change to the position that the Government set out only last week.
	As I have said already, I would have preferred that the United Kingdom’s efforts were a part of the United Nations programme, but my disappointment about that is, to some extent, mitigated by two factors. First, the UN will be heavily involved and co-operating with the United Kingdom and, secondly, we have the endorsement of the Refugee Council of the United Kingdom.
	What we have seen today is a recognition of a humanitarian obligation, and one that is much more acute because of this country’s permanent membership of the Security Council of the United Nations. Like others, I have always challenged the notion that the very generous financial provision that we have made can be seen as an alternative to implementing the humanitarian obligation towards refugees. It has been notable in this debate that there has been very little effort to maintain that proposition.
	Another proposition that has been aired in the course of the past 24 hours is that people do not want to see us being dictated to by the United Nations. The United Nations is not in a position to dictate; it is not a world Government. The United Nations makes requests. If it makes a request, all members, particularly those that enjoy the privilege of permanent membership of the Security Council, have a responsibility to respond.
	We have also seen a change of policy. I am glad to say that there has been no sense of triumphalism. Those terrible words “U-turn” have not been used as far as I can recall at any stage of the debate. That is because common sense and humanity have prevailed. It is said that the proposals that the United Kingdom Government want to talk to the United Nations about will have flexibility—flexibility no doubt over the particular qualifications of an individual that would demand that they be included in the UK-UN programme. I hope, too, that flexibility will also apply to the question of numbers. If we had to set some arbitrary limit, then, as ever, there will be deserving cases that could not be considered simply because they fall outside that limit.
	I strongly support the observations made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) in relation to the suggestion that somehow the British effort should be confined to Christians. That is something that was raised by Mr Nigel Farage. On one day, he said that he was in favour of us taking our responsibility. On 30 December, on the Jeremy Vine show, he said that he was in favour of that responsibility only so far as it extended to Christians who had been persecuted. Let me put it this way: I would find it very difficult to distinguish between a woman who had been raped as a Christian or a Muslim. I would find it
	equally difficult to distinguish between two children who had suffered grievous injury on the basis that one was a Christian and the other a Muslim. The whole point about humanitarian recognition is that it should be universal. Anything less than that is of considerable damage to the obligation.
	I will end on a slightly lighter note. Much has been said about the contribution made by refugees in this country. Let me take the House back to the wonderful Olympic games of 2012 and to Mr Mo Farah. Having won his second gold medal—he won the first in the 10,000 metres and the second in the 5,000 metres—and still panting with the exertion of the race, a microphone was thrust under his nose by someone from the BBC, who said, almost as his first question, “Wonderful. Well done. Would you not like to be representing your own country?” Mr Farah, who came here when he was six, was standing there with a Union flag around his shoulders. He said, “No, this is my country now.” If ever there was an illustration of the contribution that refugees can make to the quality of life and the achievement in a society such as ours, it is surely to be found in that incident.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am proud to be a signatory of today’s motion. A few months ago, Plaid Cymru voted against military action in the wake of the suspicions over the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons. If an attack had gone ahead then, we would not have seen the relinquishing of the chemical weapons. I should also add that since that decisive debate and vote, Iran has been persuaded to enter talks on its nuclear programme. For the first time in years, there appears to be a better prospect of some agreement. I am not naïve about this, but there are signs of progress. Only time will tell whether I am right, but President Rouhani shows strong signs of being willing to engage with the rest of the world. The avoidance of military intervention last year undoubtedly helped to create the space for that to happen. However, I must express disappointment that Iran is not at the table at Geneva II. None the less, there is a growing consensus that those talks are now Syria’s only hope, and we must not lose sight of their importance. Journeys to peace are seldom without their roadblocks, and there are certainly no shortcuts. To be utterly fair to the Government, they have led the way in appealing for and sending aid to Syria, as today’s motion notes.
	Diplomacy is the only way to end the bloodshed in Syria. Of course we understand that there are no quick-fix solutions and that many different factions are now involved in the fighting. We wish to see a ceasefire agreed at the current talks in Geneva, and I urge the UK Government to do their utmost to convince the regime and the opposition’s main backers to bring their influence to bear.
	The UK has been one of the largest financial donors of humanitarian aid, and that is most welcome. The Government should also commit to being generous in the numbers of refugees. The Prime Minister has rightly described the situation in Syria as the greatest refugee crisis of our time. We all know that a resettlement programme is the only means of offering a durable solution for the most vulnerable who struggle to survive in the harsh conditions of the region.
	The UNHCR programme focuses on the most vulnerable. About 30,000 people are being helped, which is a mere fraction of the estimated 4 million refugees who have fled Syria into neighbouring countries. Vincent Cochtel, director of the UNHCR’s Europe bureau, said:
	“From the perspective of the refugee it would make a hell of a difference.”
	By that he means signing up to the scheme. He went on to say:
	“The big picture is that there are 2.4 million Syrian refugees. When you zoom down and take a country like Turkey, it has taken 700,000 refugees, while the 47 countries that make up the rest of Europe have only taken 70,000 refugees. That gives you an idea of the scale of the problem.”

Bob Stewart: Talking of countries that could help, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be nice to see other countries in the middle east open their borders and take in refugees and give more money to support those poor people who have to exist on the borders of Syria?

Elfyn Llwyd: Of course in any refugee crisis, if somebody’s suffering can be alleviated nearer home, it is always better to do that than displacing them to a country further away. I fully agree with that. I urge the Government, even at this late stage, to consider the UNHCR scheme. I have heard what the Secretary of State has had to say on the matter, and there is some force in her argument, but I cannot understand why we are not part of the scheme. The all-pervading hysteria about migration of any sort seems to have clouded the issue. Surely humanity should dictate what we all do. When I questioned the Home Secretary earlier on, I made the point that the refugee status under international law is entirely different and should in no way be affected by the toxic debate about migration, to which we are all being subjected by the media. As one who does not have any nightmares about the UK Independence party or about Farage and that bunch, I add that Wales has a long and proud tradition of welcoming people from around the world. I urge the Government to involve the Welsh Government in this most important of policies. Plaid Cymru has in the past called for Wales to be taken into account by the Migration Advisory Committee, which develops policy. The committee works with Scotland and Northern Ireland but, for some reason, not Wales. I hope that there will be a change in that policy shortly.
	I urge the Government to continue to pursue a diplomatic solution and I hope that they will bring further pressure to bear on Russia in the talks. I know that such things are going on and it is fairly obvious and trite for us to state that they need to, but it is right that we should detail them. We all realise, I am sure, that Russia is key to persuading Assad and his supporters to reach some form of reasonable compromise. It is possible that the current round of talks will produce consensus between Russia and the United States on what the next steps towards peace should be.
	Today’s statement is very welcome as far as it goes, but despite all the speeches so far I am still unclear about why the Government cannot commit fully to the UNHCR’s resettlement programme. The Government
	have been sending humanitarian aid, but it is now urgent to ensure that there are safe corridors in that troubled country so that aid can be sent to where it can be effective. That question was touched on by the Home Secretary earlier, and I think it is crucial that that should happen.
	In the spirit of the consensus that seems to be developing on all but one or two issues, I hope that we will not divide on the motion today but will move forward with a consensual approach. I hope that the Government will keep everybody fully informed of progress over the coming weeks and months.

Stephen Metcalfe: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. I welcome the Government’s statement, which is a positive step in response to a positive call, and I am pleased to hear that we will not descend into a political argument over this.
	It is hard not to be moved by the images of suffering and pain that we have seen on our television screens and in our newspapers. The humanitarian tragedy that is unfolding is, as we have heard, the greatest in modern times. The numbers vary, but at least 2.4 million are displaced externally and many millions more internally. It is a story of human misery and suffering and a growing humanitarian crisis on which we cannot turn our back.
	Some might notice that I am still wearing the Holocaust memorial day badge and I am doing that to remind us of our duty. Yes, we have duties at home, but our duties do not end at our borders. They extend beyond them. These are men, women and children who need our help and I for one am proud of what we have done so far and today. I hope that the combined actions will stop the crisis becoming another in a growing list of examples of man’s complete inhumanity to man.
	We talk proudly of the £600 million we have given in aid, and we are right to be proud of that. It is an achievement, but having just visited a camp on the borders of Syria and Turkey as part of an Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists group, I must say that the countries in the region are playing their part, too. We might be giving aid, but they are delivering it on the ground. Turkey estimates that it has spent about £2 billion on setting up camps to house its guests.
	The purpose of the visit was to get a better idea of the situation, and I certainly think that we did. We met Turkish politicians to hear about their efforts and understand their commitment. They have a lot to be proud of. We met the Syrian opposition groups, both the Syrian Opposition Council and members of the Free Syrian Army. The opposition is a complex group representing the majority, but not necessarily all, of those who oppose the current regime. Understanding that is part and parcel of trying to find a solution.
	The most important and moving part was visiting the Nizip 2 camp, one of 22 camps set up by the Turks which house approximately 140,000 of the 600,000 or 700,000 refugees who are now in Turkey. The camp we visited is home to 5,500 people, half of whom are under 18, and is made up of nearly 1,000 containers and other buildings. During our time there, we met the refugees—or guests, as the Turks like to call them—and
	the overwhelming view was that they just want to go home. They are waiting. They are cared for, they are safe and secure and they are fed and watered, so moment by moment they are okay. Scratch the surface, however, and there is fear, frustration and—dare I say—desperation.
	As you go about the camp, seeing beautiful, happy, playful children, it is quite cheering until you stop and think, and ask what their future will be. Are they the lost generation? What are their education opportunities or their life opportunities? You start to feel their pain and try to carry out a small act of kindness, giving out sweets and warm clothing, only to be mobbed. A sense of how a situation can change strikes you and if you think too much about it is easy to be overwhelmed by the sense of loss of hope.
	Those people are our fellow humans, and anyone who is not moved by their plight needs to see it first hand. The problem is that Syria is a long way away and it is easy to push it out of sight and out of mind. If we were more local and it was in our own backyard, we would do even more than we are now, and we would persuade other people to do even more.
	As I have said, I am pleased by today’s announcement. I have no objection to playing our full part in the UNHCR’s call for countries to take a number of refugees. Indeed, I feel that it is our moral and ethical obligation to play our part in helping the weak and the vulnerable, the displaced and the war-weary, but I do not want our action to be tokenistic. I am also concerned that we are taking people away from their natural communities and local support networks just to salve our consciences. I still believe that, as I have seen, the best place to provide the widest possible support to the largest number of people is on the ground, locally, within the region.

Stuart Andrew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I was also on that trip and what struck me most was the fact that the camps were so well organised in providing education for the many children who are there and who want to go back and rebuild their country once the regime has gone. Does he not think that the investment in providing education to those children is a crucial element of the support we offer?

Stephen Metcalfe: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. One feature of the camp we visited is the service the Turkish are providing in education and access to skills learning. Unfortunately, however, only 14% of children receive any form of formal education. The Turks are doing their best, so if we really want to help we could expand such services on the ground.
	All that having been said, however, there are some who would truly benefit from the security and safety that Britain can offer. I support that, but we must remember that whatever we do will be only a small drop in a very large ocean and that by far the best way to help the largest number of people is, as we have heard, to bring all the sides together to resolve the conflict so that the poor souls we met on our trip who have been displaced can return home and start to build the secular, democratic and secure country that I am sure the majority desire.

David Lammy: I am grateful to be able to contribute to the debate and I congratulate the Secretary of State for International Development, in particular, on the £600 million in aid that she has been able to give to Syria and the region.
	My seat of Tottenham can be described as one of the country’s gateway constituencies for people claiming asylum or seeking to immigrate into this country. That has been the case for many hundreds of years and it makes the Tottenham constituency the most diverse three-mile area in Europe, with more than 250 languages spoken. At the corner of my constituency, for example, is the Orthodox Haredi Jewish community, which had to flee parts of eastern Europe because of the pogroms and the awful anti-Semitism displayed in Europe at that time.
	Of course, my constituency is also the place to which my family came from the Caribbean, my father arriving in 1956. It took me some time, as the son of immigrants, to understand that some of my classmates at primary school, secondary school and university, were not immigrants, as my parents were. They were refugees, building a life for themselves in this country. Poverty, finding one’s way in a new system and sometimes dislocation are part of that, but they also had deep scars and had suffered deep trauma.
	Looking over the four decades of my life, I think particularly of those fleeing Cyprus and this country’s outreach to the Cypriots. I think also of those fleeing Uganda because of Idi Amin’s terrorising and expulsion of Ugandan Asians. I think of the Vietnamese boat people and the Vietnamese I was at secondary school with. Then I think of those who, at about the time I was graduating and onward, came here from Bosnia and Kosovo. In each case, we reached out to those people, in part because of a shared understanding of the importance we must always give to refugee status.
	That is scarred on the history of this country, beginning to some extent with the first world war, which we will commemorate later this year, and those who fled Belgium and the lowlands. Then, the second world war brought the holocaust, which we remember this week, and the many millions who fled, some finding refuge in our country. So when we talk about the UNHCR, we talk about a very important institution. Of course I welcome the statement, and I am pleased that we will not divide the House on the motion, but I have reservations about the manner in which we are choosing to exclude ourselves from the UNHCR scheme. There are times when we look to others—recently, in the context of Syria, to China and Russia—to play their part in the international family that is the United Nations. If we then step outside the UN systems, what message does that send?
	In evoking the Ugandans, it is important to remember that in 1972, this country took in 25,000 Ugandans. In thinking of Cyprus, we should remember that we took in 50,000 Cypriots. In thinking of the Vietnamese boat people, we recall that we took in 10,000 Vietnamese. In thinking of Kosovo, we remember that we took 10,000 Kosovans into this country. Although we welcome today’s announcement, the way in which we set the language of “several hundred” should be seen in that context.
	It would be remiss of me not to say how sad it is that this debate is held against a backdrop of concern in this House about immigration. Refugee status is quite different. The truth is that, because of legislation passed under the previous Government, those coming to this country as refugees now account for only 4.5% of people coming to this country to make a life for themselves. There is an elephant in the room, but I hope that we will look again at the numbers, because I fear for those who are trying to escape Syria today.

Sarah Teather: As I said during the statement, I am absolutely delighted that Britain is to take refugees for resettlement. I have a particular interest because I visited projects serving Syrian refugees in Jordan last November. They included projects inside Zaatari camp provided courtesy of the UNHCR by Doctors of the World, UNICEF and Save the Children, and outside the camp by the Jesuit Refugee Service.
	It seems to me that there are three reasons why it was right of Britain to agree to take some of the most vulnerable refugees for resettlement. The first two have been spoken about quite a bit, but the third has not. The first—humanitarian reasons—is obvious. I will offer a few remarks on that from my experience in Jordan.
	The second reason is solidarity. That was clear to me when looking at the pressure that taking so many refugees puts on Jordan, a country that already has difficulties, with enormous pressure on services. The generosity of Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq in providing for the huge exodus of refugees from Syria is extraordinary—staggering—especially when one considers the debate here about taking just a few hundred. Like others who have spoken today, I think it would have been better had we chosen to take part in a UNHCR programme. It would have easier for us to make the arguments of solidarity, but if we are working hand in glove with the UNHCR, that is probably the most important thing.
	The third reason, about which few have spoken, is that if there is no legal route—no hope—for people to get out, the risk increases that they will take extremely difficult journeys to escape. Already, the boats coming into Lampedusa are carrying significantly more Syrians, whereas previously they were dominated by people coming from Eritrea. That is very worrying indeed and shows precisely the reason why we need to provide legal routes for people who are desperate to get out.
	When in Jordan, I was able spend a day in Zaatari. It was sobering to see the conditions for the people living there, which are difficult for anyone, let alone the very vulnerable groups of people we are talking about resettling. The UNHCR walked me through the route by which people get to Jordan, and it is worth rehearsing now. Since Jordan started managing its borders, the only way into the country from Syria is to traverse great swathes of wilderness and desert to reach the easternmost point of Jordan where it borders Iraq. Families have to sleep exposed to the elements—rain, snow and frost—for 10, sometimes 12, days. We saw the pictures just before Christmas; those are the sorts of traumatic conditions people are having to endure, so they are already extremely hungry and tired and often have no belongings at all.
	The UNHCR gives them the basic building blocks to rebuild their life, but it is a meagre existence for one who previously lived a first-world life. It is worth our thinking about what it would be like for one of us—accustomed to gadgets and soft comforts—to go into a camp such as Zaatari or tried to live in the conditions that many living outside the camp are coping with now.
	Uniqlo donated 500,000 items of clothing to Zaatari camp for the winter. That is staggering generosity. It is worth highlighting when people do good things in order to encourage them to do more. However, the security conditions and particularly the toilets in the camp have been driving many out of the camp to live in host communities, and their plight is stark. They are reliant on the World Food Programme for food vouchers and have no access to rent, and they are not allowed to work in Jordan. Some work illegally, but most send their children to work. I did not meet a single family, either in the camp or in the host community in Amman where I visited people in homes, whose children were in school. That highlights the potential for a lost generation. People are living in poor, overcrowded, damp and difficult conditions.
	It is worth remembering that Jordan has already taken many refugees. It took many refugees from Iraq in particular, and they still cannot work. It was also the backbone of the service that the Jesuit Refugee Service was providing, both its educational project in east Amman and the home visiting team. To end on a moment of hope, I saw there refugees serving other refugees, building a sense of community, working from their own experience and supporting others to integrate in difficult circumstances. That demonstrates what can be done if we provide people with the space to serve others.

Alison McGovern: I want to speak only briefly, but I want to make some points, not least on behalf of my constituents, who over the weekend expressed to me how strongly they felt that Britain should play its part.
	There are now nearly 2.5 million refugees, and the UNHCR states that they are at significant risk of sexual and gender-based violence. Other Members have talked already about the reasons—not least the conditions in the camps. However, the refugees also face more mundane but none the less significant challenges: the inability to earn money, to feed themselves, to have housing and shelter, and to be able to educate their children and to access basic services that will keep them healthy. The UNHCR says that the majority of refugees are reliant on humanitarian food aid. We know that food banks in this country are wrong. The indignity of relying on others for food is a problem, even in the face of more violent and terrible horrors.
	Refugees also face troubling and significant health problems. We have seen the return of polio, and communicable diseases such as measles, tuberculosis and other infectious conditions make life as a refugee troubling. UNICEF says that 68% of Syrian refugee children are now not in education, as the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) mentioned.
	British people never fail to show their solidarity, and I pay tribute to all who have put their hands in their pockets to show support for the Syrian people. They
	recognise, as the Home Secretary said, that refugees are ordinary citizens, just like us, caught up in a terrible war not of their making.

Jim Shannon: Is the hon. Lady aware that the charity Open Doors has recorded that, in 2013, 1,213 Christians in Syria were martyred for their faith? Does she feel that while we address the refugee issue, we should also ensure that there is assistance on the ground for those who wish to stay?

Alison McGovern: There is a range of ways in which we need to show our support. I was sorry and surprised last week to hear Ministers describe the UNHCR programme as “token”. We must do good wherever we can, and I do not hold with the view that has been expressed that because the scale of the problem is huge, each individual action that we can take for each individual at risk is not important in itself. I believe that it is. I would like to pay tribute to each and every one of those people, many of whom are UK citizens like us, who have worked to help those who have been made vulnerable by this conflict. Their work is important and we pay tribute to their efforts.

Anas Sarwar: My hon. Friend is talking powerfully about intervention to help those who are suffering as a result of the crisis in Syria. One point that is often lost in these debates is the plight of urban refugees. Many people imagine that refugees are only in refugee camps—and they certainly face real threats—but almost half of them are in urban areas.

Alison McGovern: My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. The conditions in the camps were well described by the hon. Member for Brent Central, and we must all remain focused on that important situation, but there is also a massive crisis, which could quickly turn into an economic crisis, for those countries that have welcomed refugees into their cities. We must support not only the refugees, but the host communities. They were not wealthy to begin with and now, as a result of their generosity, risk a difficult economic future.
	I will end my remarks by sharing with the House the words of some of the refugees, as documented by the support agencies. I think that it is important that we listen to the words of those affected. The World Food Programme reported on the condition of refugees in December 2013 and told the story of Zakiya. She and her three daughters fled to Latakia, carrying little more than the clothes on their backs. She said:
	“It was a matter of life and death the day we fled; we could hear the fighting approaching our area quickly and we had to run; we had no choice… I only had time to collect some cash and it was barely enough to cover our transport, let alone buy bread and water to survive”.
	It is very important that we remember not only the reality of the situation faced by refugees fleeing present danger, but the possible long-term crisis for a whole generation in the region. They will have to cope with the limits that have been placed on their hopes and ambitions by the absence of sufficient education and health facilities. They are facing not just the return of polio and significant diseases, as I have said, but more mundane risks from illness and infection disease—threats that we all live without because we have everyday health care.
	We all just assume that our children will go to school. Reema—not her real name—told Oxfam:
	“I miss my teachers. I miss my classes, my English classes, my Arabic classes, my music classes. Now I’m just sitting here every day.”
	There is real despondency. That is why I believe that we must take this opportunity, in this House of Commons, to show that we are not helpless in the face of this terror.

Andrew Bridgen: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Alison McGovern: I will.

Eleanor Laing: Order. We have very little time remaining. Members who have not been here for the whole debate have sought to intervene, and the time given to each Member who speaks is increased with each intervention, so those who have waited all afternoon to speak will not have a chance to do so. The hon. Gentleman may make his intervention, but the hon. Lady will not get extra time because of it.

Andrew Bridgen: I will be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Given that the UK Government have already committed £600 million in humanitarian aid for the Syrian refugees, which is 12 times more than France has donated, and indeed more than the rest of the European Union put together, does the hon. Lady agree that what we really want is for more countries to make the commitment to the Syrian refugees that the UK has made?

Alison McGovern: I am proud of the UK Government’s contribution, but I do not believe that it is my place as a British politician to judge others. Rather, I wish to encourage them to do all they can.
	In conclusion, as we have seen today, we are not helpless in the face of this terror. We can step in and stand between refugees and destitution. I am glad that, by and large, this House has today agreed to do that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. As Members who have spoken have taken interventions, and because some Members who have not been here for the whole debate have intervened, I have no choice but to reduce the time limit to four minutes.

Martin Horwood: I am pleased to follow the moving speech of the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern). I strongly welcome the announcement by the Deputy Prime Minister and the statement by the Home Secretary today. As several hon. Members have pointed out, it is fitting that this change has taken place in the week of Holocaust memorial day.
	I attended a very powerful and moving event in Cheltenham earlier this week. We talked about not only remembering the past, but learning from it and, in particular, about the importance of challenging the
	hysterical stereotyping of foreigners and of reaching out to those at risk of persecution. I reminded people at that event that I am the successor of Daniel Lipson, who was the Independent MP for Cheltenham during the second world war. He was also president of the Cheltenham synagogue. He spoke out in this House for the rights of refugees and for tolerance, particularly for the peoples of the middle east. I am very proud to be his successor.
	I confess that when the Refugee Council first came to me and asked for my support for this campaign, which I was happy to give, I was a little sceptical of its chances of success in the current political climate. Its success is a real tribute to the Deputy Prime Minister and others in government, as well as to hon. Members on both sides of the House, including many Conservatives, who have pressed for a change of policy, but most of all it is a tribute to the Refugee Council, Amnesty International and other organisations and their supporters who have campaigned for change. They can be very proud of what they have achieved this week for some of the most vulnerable people in the world.
	I am very pleased that the Government have adopted a scheme that will prioritise those most at risk, particularly women and girls at risk of sexual violence. That group is also a priority in the UNHCR programme, and I remain slightly puzzled about why the Government have not simply adopted that programme. May I ask Ministers to agree to keep the idea of a separate arrangement under review, and perhaps consider adopting the mainstream UNHCR programme in due course?
	I want to echo two remarks made earlier today. First, the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) asked about the separation of families in the process. I am pleased that the Home Secretary replied that the Government have no intention of separating families, but I wonder whether a slightly firmer guarantee might be given.
	Secondly, the point about the difference between refugees and migrants has been made several times. The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and others have asked whether refugees could be excluded from the net migration figure used by the Government, and I support that idea. If the right hon. Lady agrees with Mr Nigel Farage on that point, the Conservative party can probably be reassured that its right flank has been well and truly covered, and that Government policy might helpfully be modified.
	It is important to remember the context in which this step is being taken. This will be a valuable and good drop in the ocean, but it will still be only a drop in the ocean. If hundreds or even a few thousand refugees are accepted into this country, that number will still only be tiny compared with the millions who are refugees or displaced persons in Syria. We have even heard distressing examples of Iraqi refugees inside Syria who have been doubly displaced: they are now refugees again elsewhere, and still cannot return home.
	Nevertheless, the British Government have done a huge amount: we are the leading humanitarian aid donor; we are actively supporting the Geneva II peace process, which is enormously important; we have taken
	more asylum seekers already than many other European countries; and we are supporting those who are still fighting for freedom and democracy in Syria. We have a proud record of supporting the Syrian people, but it has just got a little better.

Barry Gardiner: This is a really good day for Parliament. Since 2010, I have often been asked whether it is frustrating to be in opposition. This is one of those days that I can say, “Well, sometimes in opposition you can achieve something.” That has been shown by the arguments made during the past 10 days.
	Those arguments have also been made by Government Members. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for how he spoke last week, and to the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). They have contributed to the groundswell of opinion that has made the Government move their position. I welcome that, and I think that they have done the right thing.
	We have a superb record of aid in the region. That is acknowledged on both sides of the House. I am sure that the Secretary of State for International Development will expand on that when she sums up. One thing remains that needs to be clarified. In opening the debate, the Home Secretary made much of the distinction between the programme that she is seeking to implement and the UNHCR programme. However, that is a distinction without a difference. I agree with the Home Secretary that the most important element is the response in the region, but in trying to differentiate her scheme from that of the UN, she said that she did not intend to subscribe to a quota scheme. However, the UN programme is not a quota scheme, as she knows. She needs to establish why, other than for political surface argument, her scheme is different from what is offered by the flexibility of the UNHCR scheme. She has manifestly failed to do that.
	For every refugee that we take into the UK for resettlement, it will be life changing. To give one case from my constituency, an Iraqi woman sought the assistance of my office in bringing her sister’s family to the UK. They fled Iraq and went to Syria in 2008 when the husband was killed. Before they could be safely transferred to the UK, the youngest daughter tragically died of an illness that could not be treated in Damascus because of what was going on there. I am delighted that, under the gateway programme, the family have been transferred safely to the UK for resettlement and are rebuilding their lives in Manchester. That is wonderful. There must be no confusion between the UN gateway process, which we have always been a part of and is our normal process for admitting refugees, and what is being embarked upon here. For the torture victims, abandoned children and other vulnerable refugees to whom the Government have agreed to offer sanctuary, time is of the essence.
	I have one remaining question. What was it that persuaded the Home Secretary that allowing a few hundred Syrian refugees into this country was not tokenism, which the Government maintained it was last week? Was it the images of the disabled children in refugee camps, was it the tragic stories of rape victims, or was it the prospect of losing a vote in this House?

Caroline Lucas: I welcome the tone of the debate and of the motion, which I was pleased to sign. I welcome the Home Secretary’s earlier statement, although I wish that our scheme was part of the UN’s wider scheme. I will use the few minutes that I have this afternoon to make a stronger plea for greater generosity in respect of the absolute number of people we will allow into this country.
	So many hon. Members have wanted to speak in this debate because of the sheer scale of the humanitarian crisis that is unfolding. As many people have said, this is the greatest refugee crisis of our time and we have a moral responsibility to act. The UNHCR predicts that the number of Syrian refugees fleeing the country will be more than 4 million by the end of the year. That will be the largest refugee population in the world. None of us have forgotten what the millions of Syrian people who need help are fleeing from: the death and violence preceding and following the deplorable chemical attacks on civilians in Damascus last August. The traumatic images of those attacks are etched on all our minds. We can only begin to imagine the scars that have been left on the surviving refugees by a conflict with an estimated death toll already of 130,000.
	In the face of this enormous crisis and the horrifying number of desperate people that we can hardly begin to imagine, all that is currently being asked by the UNHCR is that 30,000 Syrian refugees be admitted to other countries. I stress that that figure is what the UNHCR thinks is politically and logistically realistic, not the full number of vulnerable people who may need to seek refuge on our shores. We should not get fixated on the figure of 30,000, because the number could be much higher. Although I welcome the fact that the UK has agreed to help an unspecified number of refugees, I fear that that number will be very small.
	I want to compare that situation with the huge strain under which Syria’s neighbours are already buckling. Not surprisingly, Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq are under enormous pressure, and there is real concern that they may begin to feel that they have to turn refugees away from their shores. Scores of people trying to escape the fighting, including families with small children, are already being denied admission by those neighbouring countries. According to an April 2013 survey, 71% of Jordanians want the border with Syria to be closed to new arrivals. With thousands of people fleeing Syria every day, that would be catastrophic. That is why western countries have a moral responsibility to show solidarity with Syria’s neighbours by sharing responsibility for protecting some of the people fleeing Syria.
	The current situation in Syria’s neighbouring countries is incredibly fragile. For example, the current estimate is that refugees equating to approximately a quarter of Lebanon’s population of 4.5 million have already fled there, and by the end of the year the UN expects Lebanon to have 1.6 million Syrian refugees, an enormous 35% of the population of a country that was ranked 67th in GDP per capita in 2012. We, on the other hand, are a member of the G8 and one of the world’s largest national economies, and we are potentially being seen to be quibbling about a tiny number of people. The bottom line is that I fear we are not doing as much as we
	could and should, and that we risk sending out a signal to other countries that it is acceptable for them to do the same.
	I hope that we can talk about taking numbers of refugees not just in the hundreds but in the thousands, and that we can talk about what is needed, not the number that it may be politically expedient for us to accept.

Jim Murphy: I welcome the chance to it put on record that we have had a genuinely informed, passionate and, rightly, occasionally emotional debate about how the House, the Government and the UK population can most effectively support those seeking refugee status here and in other countries. I also want to put on record the Opposition’s appreciation of the Government’s continuing financial support for Syrian refugees, and welcome last night’s announcement that we will enable as many as several hundred to settle in the UK.
	The worst thing in government is not doing the wrong thing; it is continuing to do the wrong thing when the evidence points in a different direction. All Governments are tempted by the instinct to carry on regardless from time to time, for the fear of losing face or of an Opposition screaming loudly in the media and the Chamber that it is a U-turn. Today, the Opposition have not made that charge, and the Government have not lost face. At the end of the debate, the Government will have done the right thing.
	Of course, there remains concern that the UK will not participate formally in the UN scheme, but the most important thing is that some refugees will have the right to settle here. We therefore accept the Government’s announcement without fully agreeing with their argument about the UN, so the House will not need to divide on the motion. However, we look forward to the International Development Secretary setting out in more detail the rationale for staying outside the formal UN process. The US is part of the scheme and does not accept a quota, and other countries are in a similar position.
	Today’s speeches have reflected the fact that we are all trying to find the most effective way to help those who may not be able to survive in the camps. They are children who have lost both their parents, women who have been raped or those who have been victims of torture and will struggle to recover from their ordeal—the most vulnerable of the vulnerable. The programme is for those who believe that they will find it hard to get through the coming weeks and months in their current predicament. They are not asylum seekers. They cannot travel to apply for asylum here or anywhere else, and they are already certified as refugees by the UN.
	Let us never pretend, in the media or elsewhere, that we stand alone on this matter. The Germans are taking 10,000 refugees, and Norway 1,000. States as far away as Australia and Canada have signed up to the scheme. Spain, Sweden, Moldova and even Lichtenstein have signed up to the scheme in their own ways. Of course, not every nation is offering refuge, but the call from the UN is clear: those that can help, should help—[Interruption.] The International Development Secretary is heckling me from a sedentary position, but as I say,
	other countries will support the scheme in their own way. It is right that we lend a hand and do not turn our backs.
	The United Kingdom, I believe, stands for much more than an amalgam of the four geographies of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is also about a set of values, a way of life, and the way we act on the international stage. We have always been an outward-looking nation, and a country that takes pride in taking care. The British public are part of that spirit; they have broken new records in recent months with enormous financial contributions to the Syrian crisis, gigantic contributions to support victims of the typhoon in the Philippines, and the Comic Relief appeal.
	We have heard passionate speeches from my right hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) and for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) and for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway), and the hon. Members for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), for Moray (Angus Robertson), for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). They all spoke about refugees, and in some ways touched on the pressures on neighbouring countries.
	The UN has asked the world community to settle just 30,000 refugees. Let us think about that. Just one country—Lebanon—is currently hosting 30 times the number that the UN is asking the rest of the world to settle. Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Turkey and Egypt all face enormous pressures, and there are now parts of Lebanon where refugees outnumber the indigenous population. Last week the Lebanese Prime Minister wrote in The Daily Telegraph that Lebanon can no longer cope. He said:
	“If the United Kingdom faced the same humanitarian crisis it would be the equivalent of three times Scotland’s population of 5 million crossing into England and camping out in the Yorkshire dales.”
	We should applaud those nations and the Governments of neighbouring states who are doing so much to absorb and support those refugees. Prince Hassan of Jordan was asked whether the people of Jordan were running out of patience with refugees, but he replied in a different way and said
	“we’re running out of water.”
	That gives a sense of the scale of the crisis that those neighbouring countries are faced with, and that is why, when we spoke about the humanitarian crisis, the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) spoke with years of experience, and why the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) struggled through his yoghurt-covered peanuts—I do not know if that is the Bedfordshire equivalent of a deep-fried Mars bar, but he did well to get through it nevertheless. In that conversation everyone noted that the humanitarian crisis is not just a crisis of human struggle, but also a struggle in a crisis of humanity. On the doorstep of Europe is a nation that has been transformed, a people uprooted and a region plunged into further chaos. The sheer
	number—9 million people affected—paints a picture of the scale but masks a simple truth about death and suffering. One unnecessary death is a tragedy, but as we know, 130,000 people have died in Syria. That is not a statistic; it is 130,000 family tragedies, each and every one still being mourned.
	Four years ago, Syrians got on with their lives: the morning commute, the monthly pay cheque, the annual holiday and the school run. These were families with hopes and fears, plans for the future and memories of the past—people just like our constituents. Today their lives have been turned upside down and no community is untouched. Where once there was prosperity there is now just loss and terror. There is death, disease, violence and hunger; there are communities under siege, and polio is emerging as hope disappears.
	That is why we wish to push the Government a little further on another matter: support for children. Young Syrians are seeing their right to an education snatched away by a civil war they did not cause and cannot possibly fully understand. Ninety-seven out of 100 Syrian children used to enrol in schools, but today if Syria’s refugees were a country it would have the worst enrolment rate in the world—five times worse than sub-Saharan Africa. No one in this House wants to forget those children, and the Government have invested substantially in supporting them. However, we wish them to go further.
	In Lebanon, 300,000 refugee children cannot find a place to learn. That is why the Opposition have called on the Government to step in and get behind an international plan to get Syrian children back to schools. That innovative plan is based around double-shifting schools, using available community centres and enlisting the support of displaced Syrian teachers. Much of the thinking and work on it has been carried out by the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), supported by Ban Ki-moon. The US, Denmark and the United Arab Emirates have promised to support it, and I would like to know whether the Department for International Development could do so.
	Time is against us in the debate. I shall end where I began. When the Government do the right thing, the correct and proper Opposition response is to recognise it. We should support them when they do the right thing and continue to cajole and encourage them when they are not fulfilling their responsibilities. I therefore thank all in DFID. In the region, DFID is helping to provide humanitarian aid. I thank all Britons working for non-governmental organisations, charities and churches that are helping to provide such aid.
	I put it on record that Opposition Members, like Government Members, want the policy that has been announced in the past 24 hours to be a success. We stand ready to provide any advice and support, and input into the Government’s thinking, over the next few weeks and months, on their policy. Those who are struggling—those about whom all hon. Members have spoken and read, and whom we have seen on our television sets—expect nothing more and nothing less than politicians on both sides of the House working together to secure their lives and provide them with some semblance of a future.

Justine Greening: The House has heard many eloquent contributions, and many horror stories of the crisis inside Syria and the impact it has on the broader region. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) set that out. There are men and women inside Syria who are denied access to any form of humanitarian support, including access to food—the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) spoke of those who are dying from starvation through a lack of humanitarian support. In a moving speech, the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) spoke of the outbreak of polio 14 years after Syria was certified polio-free. She will be pleased the learn that the UK was part of helping the World Health Organisation to immunise about 200,000 children in Syria at the end of last year in response to that outbreak.
	Since the crisis began, 14 UN staff and 32 Syrian Arab Red Crescent volunteers have been killed doing their jobs, going about providing humanitarian support to those who need it. As hon. Members have said, the crisis is having an exceptionally heavy toll on Syrian children. I have made several visits to the region. I have met refugees who had been in the camps for some time and those who had just arrived. Some started off with a lot and some with not very much, but in most cases they have very little, if anything, left to their names. Most have left having seen their towns and villages bombed and in fear of their lives. Many have moved on several occasions before finally taking the decision to leave Syria.
	In Lebanon, 40% of the refugees arriving are children aged 17 or under, which is a shocking statistic. I met children who are being educated in the Zaatari camp in Jordan. When a convoy plane flies overhead delivering humanitarian supplies to the camp, the children automatically dive under the tables because they are so used to having to do that in Syria when bombs are dropping.
	I assure the House that the UK is standing by the Syrian people in their hour of desperate need. As we have heard, our total funding for Syria and the region is now £600 million, which is three times the size of our response to any other humanitarian crisis. We have also heard that our aid contribution is second only to that of the United States. In fact, it is getting on for as much as all other EU member states put together. That figure represents the deep concern, which I think has been demonstrated across the whole House today, regarding the worsening plight of the Syrian people and the growing need inside Syria in particular and across the region.

Bob Stewart: May I ask the Secretary of State to assure the House that, to the best of her knowledge, refugees who get to the Syrian border and into a camp will be fed and clothed, and have their basic medical needs taken care of? We cannot do anything inside Syria, but we sure as hell can do something on the borders.

Justine Greening: I can reassure my hon. Friend. UK aid is being supplied to more than 300,000 people a month, many of whom are in camps. We are supplying water to nearly 1 million people a month, which is vital.
	We have provided more than 300,000 medical consultations for people who would otherwise be without the sort of medical support they were often used to in their previous lives. Syria was a middle-income country and people had lifestyles that we would recognise. For them, the transition into camps has been harsh.

Anas Sarwar: The right hon. Lady speaks about support to camps. Given that half the refugees are in urban areas, will she outline what support is going to those parts?

Justine Greening: I was going to refer to the hon. Gentleman’s earlier remarks. He is right to highlight the pressures that the influx of refugees is having not just on countries as a whole, but on so-called host communities. Many have seen their populations literally double, and that is having the sort of effect we can all imagine. It is stretching health care, hospitals, schools—I will come on to talk about some of the work we are doing to support children—water, sanitation and sewerage systems. The UK was instrumental in working with the World Bank to set up a trust fund, focused in that case on helping Jordan, to invest in basic services. We want to ensure that not only are refugees taken care of, but the people in host communities who have been very generous in accepting refugees and have been hugely affected by doing so. Another example, which is part of our work to support children in Lebanon, is that we have recently provided more than 300,000 packs of textbooks for children in public schools. Most of the children receiving those textbooks will be Lebanese and about 80,000 will be Syrian. It is important that we reflect and recognise the support needed by host communities.
	Millions of Syrians are facing the harshest winter of their lives. For many, it is the third winter they are facing as refugees. I was in Bekaa valley in Lebanon earlier this month. The UK has provided about £90 million for so-called “winterisation”: winter tents, warm clothing, heating, food, blankets and shelter kits. I pay tribute, as the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) did, to the non-governmental organisations. They are often the organisations that provide this support on the ground. The whole House should pay tribute to their dedication and efforts in what are incredibly challenging and often dangerous situations.
	We are deeply concerned about sexual violence. The UK is funding specialist programmes that prioritise the protection of women and girls who have been affected by the crisis, both inside Syria and in the region. We held an international summit, which was a call to action on the overall issue of protecting girls and women in humanitarian crisis situations so that they are not victims of sexual violence. The hon. Member for Wirral South was right to highlight some of the health issues faced by women, in particular, in these circumstances.
	Inevitably, it is the most vulnerable groups who find themselves most at risk. Last September, when I was in Zaatari camp, I met a number of women who were living there. It was interesting to hear the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), who has also been to that camp. Many of the women are stoic about the situation in which they find themselves, but once they begin to talk one hears more about the traumatic experiences they have been through. The thing they worry about most, whether they are men or women, is the impact of the crisis—[Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. There are Members now in the Chamber who have not sat through this sombre debate, but who are making so much noise that I cannot hear the Secretary of State. Everyone else has been heard. Members ought to show courtesy to other Members.

Justine Greening: The thing that parents worry about most is what the crisis is doing to their children and the experiences their children are going through. I have met children who have clearly been traumatised by these events. Many, on the outside, seem to be coping with the crisis, but when talking to them, one realises that their heartbreaking experiences will mark them for the rest of their lives. When they draw pictures in school, they draw pictures of planes bombing their homes, and when they talk, they talk about chemical weapons attacks and their concerns about what they have done to Syria.
	As highlighted today, the big challenge is that Syria’s children are in danger of becoming a lost generation. They will grow up and become adults, and we all have a choice about what kind of adults we would like them to become and the kind of opportunities we would like them to have. That is one reason why the UK has worked hard with UNICEF—we are now its biggest bilateral donor—to focus international attention on the No Lost Generation campaign, which is about ensuring that children, in particular, are taken care of.
	The thing about UN appeals that are only half funded is that while many life-saving measures, such as those mentioned today, are taken, those extra things that children in particular often need, such as education and psycho-social trauma counselling, tend to get left out. That is why it is important that these UN appeals be funded, and why the UK has provided so much funding and why the rest of the international community needs to work harder to ensure the appeal is fully funded.
	It was particularly interesting to hear from my hon. Friends the Members for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) and for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who have seen refugees in Turkey for themselves and who eloquently set out their views on how it was affecting children. I can assure the House that the £30 million that we have invested in UNICEF to provide protection, trauma care and education, particularly for children, will not be the final word in our investment to help those children.
	Some 4.2 million children are in need inside Syria, and 2 million of them are school-aged but not in school. We know that many schools in Syria have been bombed. About 500,000 child-registered refugees are not enrolled in school, and as we have heard, some are sent out to work, but some have parents too scared to take them out of the tent and into school, because they do not want to let them out of their sight in camps as big as Zaatari. One of the most important things to do, working with the NGO community and UNICEF, is to ensure that parents feel secure in sending their children to school, often in alien environments.
	I have met teachers in Lebanon in schools running two shifts, and they are amazing professionals. They sat down with me and talked about how they and head teachers had work as teams to ensure schools could operate double shifts—in the morning for Lebanese children, and in the afternoon for Syrian children. It is
	remarkable to see how these children rub along together and have come to understand more about each other’s experiences as the term has gone by.
	Clearly, the international community needs to do more. Countries such as Lebanon and Jordan in particular, but also many others, have been incredibly generous in opening up their borders and allowing refugees in, and it is absolutely right that today my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced that the UK Government would continue to evolve our support for those affected by the Syrian crisis by extending that support and providing sanctuary to the most at-risk refugees from this war. The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) talked about Ugandan-Asian refugees coming here. One of them is now the leader of Wandsworth council, which shows the contribution that many refugees make to Britain.
	I can assure the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) and the hon. Members for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) that we will work hand in hand with the UNHCR. I had a good talk with Antonia Guterres in Switzerland last week about how we could ensure the programme worked effectively.
	I think that, ultimately, we all recognise that Syria needs a political solution to end the fighting. That point was made very eloquently by someone for whom I have a huge amount of respect, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), and also by my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway) and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd).
	In the meantime, as we all have hopes for the Geneva II process but retain a heavy sense of the level of the challenges that remain, the British people can be proud of the role that Britain is playing in conveying humanitarian assistance to those who need it. As we have already heard today, not only is that the right thing to do, but ending the conflict and bringing stability to the region is in Britain’s national interest.
	Britain is on the side of the people in Syria about whom we have talked today. We will do everything that we can to achieve a political solution, but during that process we will continue to be at the forefront of the humanitarian response.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the Government’s £600 million response to the unprecedented Syrian refugee crisis; further welcomes the UK’s leadership in the appeal for aid and supports calls for the rest of the international community to ensure the UN humanitarian appeal for Syria has the resources it needs to help those suffering from the conflict; is concerned about the plight of the most vulnerable refugees who will find it hardest to cope in the camps in the region, including victims of torture and children in need of special assistance; and calls on the Government to participate in the UNHCR Resettlement and Humanitarian Admission of Syrian Refugees Programme.

Steve Rotheram: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, during Prime Minister’s Question Time, I said that child poverty was on the increase in Britain. That was disputed by the Prime Minister, who claimed that it was, in fact, going down.
	As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am a diligent fellow, and I was once called “a perspicacious terrier” by Mr Speaker himself, so I double-checked with Save the Children this afternoon. I can now confirm that absolute child poverty is rising in this country, and that, just this month, the Institute for Fiscal Studies released projections showing that, whichever way the Government measure child poverty, it is set to increase massively over the next decade. Madam Deputy Speaker, could you—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Whatever Mr Speaker may have said about him in the past, the hon. Gentleman has not made a point of order so far. What he is making is a point of debate in disagreeing with something that was said earlier. Unless he wishes to raise a matter, further to his point of order, that can be dealt with by the Chair, I must congratulate him on getting his point on the record, but say to him that it is not a point of order for me, as the occupant of the Chair.

Steve Rotheram: Further to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Dawn Primarolo: It had better be. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman does not need any help.

Steve Rotheram: Because you were not in the Chamber at the time, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was trying to explain to you exactly what had happened earlier. Can you now advise me on whether it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister to come back to the House and apologise for misleading—or inadvertently misleading—the House?

Dawn Primarolo: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of the proceedings in the House earlier. However, I must say to him “Nice try, but it is still not a point of order.”
	What is said in the House is relevant and a matter for each Member, and I am sure that, given that the hon. Gentleman has been described as someone who is persistent, he will find another way—although not this afternoon—in which to pursue his point with regard to the information given by the Prime Minister.

Teaching Quality

Tristram Hunt: I beg to move,
	That this House believes that no school system can surpass the quality of its teachers; and therefore resolves that all teachers in all state-funded schools should be qualified or working towards Qualified Teacher Status, be undertaking ongoing continuing professional development and have their skills and knowledge re-validated throughout their careers in order to support them to excel in the classroom, to improve learning outcomes for all children in all schools, to uphold discipline in the classroom, to tailor their teaching to children with special educational needs and to close the attainment gap between disadvantaged children and their peers.
	The motion—which flows on from those very powerful words of the Secretary of State for International Development about the power and purpose of education—begins with a clear statement of principles that were first enunciated by Sir Michael Barber.
	This should be a moment when—just as in the previous debate—the House comes together, to extol the virtues of a highly qualified, self-motivating and dedicated teaching profession. It should be a moment when we undertake a shared commitment to give teachers the best possible training, so that we equip them properly for the demands of the classroom, and it should be a moment when we unite in praising all the hard work that teachers and head teachers do on a daily basis, while also acknowledging that we currently have one of the best teaching cohorts that the country has ever seen. I see the Secretary of State nodding in agreement and I hope that when he steps up to the Dispatch Box he will acknowledge the last Labour Government’s role in delivering that cohort and in raising teaching standards. We know of his enthusiasm for debating the past. Today should be the perfect opportunity—

Gordon Marsden: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech. Does he agree that it is curious that we have a Secretary of State who wants to micro-manage discussion of the first world war but is not prioritising continuing professional development of teachers who might be able to instruct their pupils rather better?

Tristram Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which leads me perfectly on to my first point, which is about education focusing on the professionalism of the teacher in the classroom, rather than being micro-managed from Whitehall. It was the Prime Minister himself who in 2010 said—[Interruption.] I would have thought that Conservative Members would like to listen to the words of the Prime Minister. He said:
	“The quality of a teacher is the single most important factor in a child's educational progress.”
	Moreover, he said,
	“children with the best teachers”
	learn
	“four times as fast”
	as those taught by the least effective. He was absolutely right. He also offered a solution that drew on international evidence and best practice:
	“Finland, Singapore and South Korea have the most highly qualified teachers, and also some of the best education systems in the world because they have deliberately made teaching a high prestige profession.”

Michael Fabricant: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman with considerable interest. Last Friday, I was in a debate with Carwyn Jones, the Labour leader of the Welsh Assembly, who admitted that the Welsh Government had, to use his words, “had its eye off the ball” and for that reason the standard of education in Wales is among the worst in Europe. What advice could the hon. Gentleman give the First Minister of Wales to help improve the standard of education in Wales, which is now lower than that of Hungary?

Tristram Hunt: My advice is to not have unqualified teachers in the classroom and to keep going with the reforms that have been introduced recently on league tables and the literacy and numeracy strategy. We know that the surest way to improve children’s attainment is to boost the status, elevate the standing and raise the standards of the teaching profession. Therefore, today, let us put our differences aside and send a clear message to teachers, parents and pupils that the House understands the importance of teacher quality to improving the performance of our education system.
	I saw it first hand last week when I attended the annual prize giving at St Thomas More Catholic school in Wood Green, north London, the most improved school in England. As we saw from last week’s analysis of GCSE results, much good work is being done in schools throughout the country.

Andrew Percy: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether he draws a distinction between teachers who have gained qualified teacher status through the study of a PGCE and teachers who have gained QTS through the graduate teacher programme or Teach First? Do international jurisdictions consider those qualifications gained in a different way? Do they value them differently in international comparisons?

Tristram Hunt: As ever, the hon. Gentleman is a master of his profession. We were happy to introduce, under a Labour Government, the wonderful Teach First scheme, which was about the road to having qualified teachers in the classroom. Gaining QTS, as I will explain, is not the be all and end all of focusing on teacher quality, but it is an important plank of the minimum standards that we would expect. The attainment gap between children on free school meals and those whose parents can afford to pay actually widened in 72 out of 152 areas last year. There remains a worrying attainment gap between less advantaged pupils and those from more affluent families, and current policy is failing to address that. The most worrying disparities were in the affluent areas of Wokingham and Buckinghamshire. There is therefore much work to be done.

David Lammy: When my hon. Friend visited St Thomas More school—the most improved secondary school in the country—did he have an opportunity to discuss with the head teacher, Martin
	Tissot, the way in which he had rigorously ensured that teaching in the classroom had raised standards in the school? Did my hon. Friend also hear about the commitment of the staff who come in on Saturday mornings as well as taking part in a great deal of activity after school to raise standards further?

Tristram Hunt: Such examples prove the power of leadership, of purpose and of camaraderie among teachers. It is the teachers and the head teachers who are the real agents of change, as Martin Tissot at St Thomas More school has shown. Labour’s academy programme was about delivering that sense of autonomy and leadership, which can prove instrumental in that regard.

Chris Ruane: The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) mentioned Wales, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) has just talked about the importance of leadership. The hon. Member for Lichfield was dissing Wales, but I should like to inform him that Rhyl high school in my constituency, which was a failed secondary school five years ago, is now the best school in Wales. That is down to the leadership of the head teacher, Claire Armitstead. Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to Claire and to Rhyl high school?

Tristram Hunt: I would be delighted to pay tribute to the leadership of Claire Armitstead. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend for promoting mindfulness and attentiveness in the classroom. Those are the kind of disciplines that help to achieve results.
	What happens in the classroom is essential, and the point is simple: good teachers change lives. They engender curiosity, self-improvement and a hunger for knowledge. It is they who awaken the passion for learning that a strong society and a growing economy so desperately need. They are the architects of our future prosperity, not the enemies of promise.

Therese Coffey: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be seeking his own teaching qualification if he is still planning to give lessons himself. Both my parents were qualified teachers, and I am very proud of that fact. Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that there are fewer teachers without qualified teacher status in state schools under this Government than there were under Labour?

Tristram Hunt: The hon. Lady admits an important point, on which we can agree. We both want to move towards having more qualified teachers. I am glad that we agree on that, and that she will be supporting that part of the motion tabled by her coalition colleagues. Under the Labour Government, teachers working on a permanent basis in the classroom were working towards qualified teacher status. That is the vital difference: we believed in working towards qualified teacher status, whereas this Government believe in deregulation and de-professionalisation.
	The first plank in Labour’s schools policy is to focus on standards and not structures. We do not think that the job is done simply because a school has changed its name to that of an academy or a free school. We think that the most important relationship is between a teacher and a pupil, and we would therefore ensure that all
	teachers in state-funded schools were qualified or working towards qualified teacher status. We currently have a deregulated, downgraded system of professional teaching standards. Shamefully, under this Government, a person needs more qualifications to work as a burger bar manager than to be in charge of the education of our young people. We believe, as the Prime Minister did once and as the Deputy Prime Minister might still do—it is always difficult to tell—that our young people need highly qualified, highly motivated teachers in their classrooms.

Mel Stride: The hon. Gentleman will know that there are many unqualified teachers in the independent sector. If that is such a bad thing, can he explain why so many parents make such financial sacrifices to send their children to those schools?

Tristram Hunt: The most recent evidence I have seen shows that more than 90% of teachers in the independent sector have qualified teacher status, so that is the vast majority. I suggest that the remaining number should be working towards qualified teacher status so that they can transfer their skills to the state sector.
	Under a Labour Government, we would not have the scandal of an academy school in Leeds advertising for “an unqualified maths teacher” with just four GCSEs. We would not have the scandal of the Al-Madinah free school where the presence of so many unqualified teachers did such damage to those pupils’ learning. We would not have more than one in 10 teachers in free schools being unqualified.

Michael Gove: I have taken the opportunity at the Dispatch Box before to draw to the attention of the hon. Gentleman the fact that the South Leeds academy was advertising for trainees under a provision that has existed since 1982. The letter that acquainted me with those facts was also shared with him. Why has he repeated something that is simply untrue in this House and on other public platforms?

Tristram Hunt: I read the advert and it said, “an unqualified maths teacher.” It was there in black and white. I had at this point—[Interruption.]

Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend on the Front Bench was accused of lying. Is it right for the Secretary of State to accuse him of lying?

Dawn Primarolo: I most certainly did not hear that, and I would have done. As far as I can see, there is a dispute with regard to the accuracy of each Member’s interpretation of the said advert, but the Secretary of State most definitely did not accuse the hon. Gentleman of lying. He has put very forcefully exactly why he is of the view that he is with regard to the said advert. I am afraid that that is not a point of order.

Tristram Hunt: I had hoped at this point in my speech to unite both sides of the House by quoting the words of Sir Michael Wilshaw, the head of Ofsted, who said:
	“I would expect all teachers in my schools to be qualified.”
	However, after last Friday’s remarkable briefing war by the Department for Education against Her Majesty’s chief inspector, I realise that he is not the unifying force that he might once have been. The achievement of qualified teacher status is not on its own a guarantee of teaching excellence; it is merely a starting point. We need to look at new ways of getting the best candidates into the teaching profession and the best teachers into underperforming schools.

Barry Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend agree that a very good chief inspector of schools such as Sir Michael Wilshaw may find such a situation very difficult—I am not making a party political point here. Going back to the foundation of the chief inspector, he is not allowed to look at a chain of schools. If he cannot do that, he has to look at an individual free school and an individual academy. That is restrictive because he cannot see the environment in which that failing school, in some circumstances, can be supported.

Tristram Hunt: My hon. Friend, the former Select Committee Chairman, makes a powerful policy point. It will be policy under a Labour Government that Ofsted will be allowed to inspect academy chains so that we can root out underperformance.
	We need to ensure that initial teacher training is preparing teachers properly for the pressures of the classroom, especially when it comes to discipline and behaviour management. Similarly, retention rates are a cause for concern and so too is the loss of talent to the classroom. The second plank of Labour’s drive to enhance teaching quality is effective training and new career pathways for teachers.
	In England, the most effective teachers are often encouraged to go for leadership promotion and are therefore out of the classroom within a relatively short space of time. The Labour party will develop pathways to allow teachers to pursue their own particular strengths and interests whether in pedagogy, leadership or in an area of specialism such as behaviour management or curriculum development. Just as the medical profession allows for the development of consultant-level expertise, that must be our ambition in education.

Chris Skidmore: rose—

Tristram Hunt: I will give way in a moment.
	I must put on the record that we have reservations about whether School Direct, as constituted, has the capacity to deliver that excellence. The story of the programme for international student assessment is that those teacher training systems that have a connection to a strong academic base produce more effective outcomes for learners. We also know that effective training in understanding child development delivers the discipline and attentiveness that many classrooms require. We fear that the important partnership that excellent higher education institutions can play in training teachers is being undermined and nothing I have seen from the international evidence says that that is the route to raising standards.
	The most effective teachers are those who can combine excellent practical skills with the ability to understand and use research for the development of their teaching. That is particularly the case when they are dealing with
	children with special educational needs and troubled learners who are seeking to navigate early adulthood in the modern landscape of social media and the internet.

Andy Sawford: I declare an interest, as my wife is a special educational needs co-ordinator, and I absolutely support the points that my hon. Friend is making. My wife, like many teachers I know, undertakes regular professional development. It must be right to say, as we propose, that every teacher should undertake such development and that the Government will support that.

Tristram Hunt: My hon. Friend puts his finger on the point. The vital challenge for education reform is trying to keep teachers’ skills up to date. As the Education Committee has said
	“successive education ministers have neglected continuing professional development (CPD) and focused overly much on initial teacher training”.
	That is why the third plank of the Labour party’s schools policy is a profession-led programme of revalidating teachers on a rolling basis to ensure that teachers are up to date on subject knowledge and classroom technique.

Nadine Dorries: That one-size-fits-all approach does not work across the school curriculum, particularly in arts and music and other such areas. A teacher in a school in my constituency has been a first violinist in an orchestra for all his life and now spends a lot of time in the music department of his school. He has no interest in professional development or in continuing his development, and although I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is trying to say there are many areas across the curriculum in which expertise other than the development about which he is talking is relevant and useful to children.

Tristram Hunt: The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. There has always been a role for instructors coming into a school—for example, outside experts, lecturers and those who teach sport and music—and we would retain that. However, if someone is permanently in charge of the curriculum outcomes for young people in a class, it seems to me that as a minimum they should be of qualified teacher standard. There is no way that we will block the creativity and excellence coming into schools, but we want the best possible teachers, with minimum guarantees of teaching standards, to look after the education of our young people.
	The Sutton Trust and the London School of Economics have concluded that if we raised the performance of the bottom 10% of teachers only to the average we would see a marked improvement in performance in our schools. That is especially the case when we consider that disadvantaged children suffer most from poor teaching. Without home support and social capital to fall back on, children from disadvantaged backgrounds suffer disproportionately from poor teaching.

Graham Stuart: The hon. Gentleman has been very generous in giving way and I am grateful to him for doing so. May I ask him at the very least to nuance his policy on non-qualified
	teachers? I do not know whether since the last debate, three months ago, he has sought evidence on the quality of non-QTS teachers in our schools. If he has, perhaps he could share it with the House. If he has not, will he at least undertake to carry out a piece of research to consider the quality of those teachers before putting in train a system that could ultimately lead to their removal, if not sacking, from the classroom?

Tristram Hunt: I thank the Chair of the Education Committee for his intervention, but I am always bemused by his blind spot on this policy. He makes a curious transition from being a rather inquiring, cerebral Chair of a Select Committee to being a rather more partisan figure when he sits up on the Back Benches pursuing party policy. I would welcome research from the Education Committee on the role of qualified teacher status nationally and internationally. I know that his Committee frequently travels to Finland and Singapore, so perhaps on his next trip he could do some research into that policy area.

Nia Griffith: Does my hon. Friend recall that, very often, a finding of Ofsted inspections is that teachers who are unqualified or who are teaching subjects in which they are unqualified produce the poorest results? Does he agree that people need to focus on the use of teachers in particular subject areas and their need for ongoing training to ensure that they are not unfamiliar with those subjects?

Tristram Hunt: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. All we are asking for when we talk about qualified teacher status are minimum safeguards to ensure quality.
	That is only part of the story. A Labour Government would demonstrate our commitment to elevating the standing of teachers by expecting them to undertake regular professional development, which would sit alongside any internal appraisal structure or the intervention of Ofsted. That is vital to raising standards, and it would bring teaching into line with other high-status, mature professions such as lawyers and doctors. It is also vital for future-proofing our education system. Technology is transforming education—it is remarkable how the internet is allowing access to so much of the artistic and historic creativity of humankind—but I was shocked to receive a letter from Microsoft telling me that, according to one of its surveys, 74% of teachers believe they do not have the skills to teach computing properly because the subject is moving so fast. That is exactly where we want teachers to be up to date with continuing professional development.
	Just as doctors are revalidated on their knowledge of new medicines and trials, so teachers have to be up to date with the latest research and pedagogy. We need teachers to share expertise, to observe lessons, and to collaborate across schools and trusts.

John Pugh: I think the hon. Gentleman said—it will be in his script—that successive Secretaries of State have not been interested in continuing professional development. I think that is exactly what he said. Can he explain to me why inset days used to be referred to as Baker days?

Tristram Hunt: Because they were introduced by Lord Baker, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
	The best continuing professional development produces remarkable results for young people, and the process needs to be profession-led. If we are interested in serious professional development, it cannot be a bureaucratic box-ticking exercise. I am encouraged by what the Prince's Teaching Institute says in its proposals for a royal college of teaching:
	“Certification will be the process by which teachers’ standards are assessed by the College.”
	As the former Secretary of State, Baroness Morris, has written:
	“The idea of a Royal College of Teachers, fast gaining support from all sides, is the obvious organisation to lead on developing the idea”
	of revalidating or recertifying to ensure that teachers are up to date with their professional development.

Jim Cunningham: I know today’s debate is mainly about teachers, but has my hon. Friend given any thought to the development of teaching assistants, for example, and what sort of future they might have?

Tristram Hunt: Where teaching assistants are used appropriately, effectively and professionally, they can make a transformational difference in young people’s learning outcomes. Again, it is about having the skills and understanding of how to use teaching assistants.
	Our idea to revalidate teachers and to promote continuing professional development has been welcomed by head teachers, business leaders and prominent educationalists. Teacher Mike Cameron—I see the Conservative party does not want to hear from everyday teachers working in the classroom—says that
	“Teachers would control the teaching profession… and part of that involves making sure, by re-validation, that as an individual, I am still worthy of calling myself a teacher.”

Lyn Brown: Is my hon. Friend as surprised as I am that the Schools Minister is not in his place?

Tristram Hunt: I am decreasingly surprised by the absence of the Schools Minister. When anything tricky comes up in public policy, we have a rather small cohort of Ministers from the Department for Education. As we can see from the amendment to the motion, they are in a neither fish nor fowl place on this.
	The CBI has welcomed our policy. Katja Hall said:
	“we need to create a culture where teachers are continually developed in the classroom to support them raising standards in schools. A licence system deserves serious consideration”.
	From Brett Wigdortz of Teach First to the leading teaching trade unions to Russell Hobby of the National Association of Head Teachers, there is clear engagement and support for the idea. Even the Secretary of State’s old employer, The Times—before he spurned it for the Daily Mail group—has called the policy “courageous and correct”. I would hope for similar support from the coalition parties today.
	The Opposition’s call is simply put in the first sentence of the motion: no education system can outperform the quality of its teachers. So instead of the relentless energy spent on endless structural reform, instead of the confused tinkering with the curriculum, instead of telling teachers how to teach chunking or whether they should use exercise books or not, our policy is altogether more
	ambitious—to work towards a world-class teacher in every classroom. I hope that Government Members will join us this afternoon in supporting the motion.

Dawn Primarolo: I have to inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Chris Skidmore: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In his speech, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) said that the head of Ofsted, Sir Michael Wilshaw, was specifically opposed to the use of unqualified teachers. Yet in an article in The Daily Telegraph on 9 December 2013—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The hon. Gentleman wishes to speak in this debate and he is already putting his arguments on the record. Perhaps he will be a little more patient. That is not a point of order. It is a point of debate and he can make it when it is his turn. I call the Secretary of State.

Michael Gove: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
	“notes that the Coalition Government is committed to raising the quality and status of teaching; acknowledges the significant progress made since 2010 in achieving those aims; recognises that the part of the Coalition led by the Deputy Prime Minister believes that all state-funded schools should employ teachers with or working towards Qualified Teacher Status; also recognises that the part of the Coalition led by the Prime Minister believes that free schools and academies should retain the freedom to hire the best teachers regardless of whether they hold Qualified Teacher Status; and registers the fact that the number of teachers without Qualified Teacher Status has fallen under this Government.”
	I congratulate the shadow Secretary of State on his speech and on securing the debate. I agree with him that there is nothing more important than ensuring that we have top quality teachers in all our classrooms. While I have the time, I also congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), who has responsibility for children and families, who was last night voted by Dod’s as Minister of the year for the fantastic work that he has done on adoption and child protection. Because that vote depended on support across the House, it is a recognition of the outstanding job that he does. [Interruption.] I will come to the shadow Schools Minister and the West Cardiff question in a moment.
	In the meantime, may I also congratulate the country’s teachers. The shadow Secretary of State was typically generous in pointing out that we have the best generation of teachers and heads in our classrooms. Just last week, with the latest GCSE results, we saw that the number of students who were in underperforming schools had dropped in the last year by hundreds of thousands. Across the House there is an appreciation of the superb work done by teachers and head teachers in state education, ensuring that our state education system is better than ever before.
	Because I too, like the shadow Secretary of State, am interested in the opinion of teachers, I sent the Opposition’s motion today to a friend of mine who is an English teacher to ask him for his view. He presented me with this analysis of it.

Tristram Hunt: Name him.

Michael Gove: I will name him in due course.
	The motion states:
	“That this House believes that no school system can surpass the quality of its teachers; and therefore resolves”.
	My friend said:
	“A clause following a semi-colon needs an expressly stated subject (as opposed to a merely ‘understood’ one, just as a complete sentence does. In other words, either the semi-colon must be replaced by a comma or the clause after it must be changed to something like ‘and that this house therefore resolves’ or ‘and that it therefore resolves’. As it stands, the construction is ungrammatical.”
	He went on to the next phrase, which refers to
	“all teachers in all state-funded schools”
	and stated that
	“one or other of the two ‘alls’ is redundant and should be deleted”.
	He then looked at the phrase
	“should be qualified or working towards Qualified Teacher Status”.
	He acknowledged that it was
	“better, because less awkward-looking”,
	but suggested that “should” as well as “be” should be at the beginning of each of the clauses.
	He then pointed out that the reference to “ongoing continuing professional development” was tautologous, because continuing professional development is, by definition, ongoing. He also noted that the claim that that was
	“in order to support them to excel in the classroom”
	was an example of “Shocking grammar.” One cannot support someone to do something—following the word “support” with an infinitive. Rather, one supports someone in his or her attempt to do something. He went on in a similar vein and concluded: “Regrettably, this motion is, in total, a shocking piece of English.”
	The reason I mention that is that I have enormous respect and affection for the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt). He and I are fans of both George Eliot and George Orwell. George Orwell wrote that
	“the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers”
	because
	“the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts… Political language”—
	of the kind we see in the Opposition’s motion—
	“is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
	Sadly, that is what the Opposition’s case today is—pure wind without solidity.
	The Opposition appear to be arguing that there is some sort of crisis in teaching, specifically recruitment to teaching, but the number of graduates with top degrees is up. Almost three quarters of graduates starting teacher training in this academic year have a first-class or 2:1 degree. That is the highest quality of graduates starting teacher training since records began. It is also the case that the number entering the teaching profession from top universities is up. Some 14% of graduates leaving Oxford in the past three years have chosen teaching as their profession, making it the single most popular destination for students from that university.
	The quality of teaching has never been better. Ofsted figures show that it has improved significantly since 2010. Under Labour, the percentage of teaching that was “good” or “outstanding” in primary schools was 69%, but recent figures show that it is now 79%. Under Labour, the percentage of teaching that was “good” or “outstanding” in secondary schools was 65%, but now it is 72%. That is significant improvement under this coalition Government.

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Michael Gove: I am delighted to give way to my old friend from Stornoway.

Angus MacNeil: The right hon. Gentleman laboured heavily on grammar. I would like to know whether, in the recesses of his mind, he sees grammar as something that is fixed for ever. Does he see grammar as being prescriptive or descriptive?

Michael Gove: That is probably the best intervention we have had for some time on the question of education, because it actually relates to what is taught. I believe that we need proper grammatical rules in order to ensure that words are used with precision. Like all bodies of knowledge, however, it evolves over time. There is no tension between recognising that there are certain grammatical rules and that they change, in the same way as there is no tension between recognising that there are certain literary works that should always be in the canon and that over time they change. For example, Macpherson’s “Ossian” is out of the canon, but Burns will always be in.

Gordon Marsden: The Secretary of State talked about sloppy language and various other things. Would he care to define for the House the meaning of the words he just used: “top teachers from our universities”?

Michael Gove: I said, “teachers from our top universities”. Of course, I refer to Oxford university as one of our top universities, but perhaps I should have included Cambridge and Imperial, or Aberdeen and Edinburgh for that matter—there are many. The point I am making is that the Opposition cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that we want teaching to be an elite profession and then, when we congratulate those people from elite institutions who go into teaching, decry us for somehow being snobbish. I have taken the hon. Gentleman’s point. In fact, I have expanded it into a logical argument, only subsequently to refute it.

Chris Ruane: Aren’t you the clever one?

Michael Gove: Yes.
	I know what the shadow Secretary of State will say, because I have heard him say it before. He will say, “Okay, Secretary of State. The quality of teachers at the moment—it pains me to admit it—must be good, but I prophesy that the situation will deteriorate. It will deteriorate because of your open-door policy on teaching.”
	Like his fellow west midlander or black countryman Enoch Powell, Tristram sees the Government letting all the wrong people in. As a result of our dangerously liberal policies, he can see torrents of rubbish being taught in our classrooms. His is what one might call the “rivers of crud” prophecy.
	What is the truth? The number of teachers without qualified teacher status is going down under this Government. In 2012, unqualified teachers made up only 3.3% of the teaching work force in all schools, down from 4.5% in 2005. The proportion of unqualified teachers has diminished in every year that we have been in power. That utterly refutes the scaremongering of the Enoch Powell-like figure on the Opposition Front Bench. We know that Labour will say, “Well, it’s going up in academies and free schools.” Labour uses a statistic, and I will leave it to the House to decide exactly how accurate and helpful it is: in its proper scaremongering way, it says that there has been a 141% increase in unqualified teachers in academies and free schools since the election. Like the Fat Boy in Dickens, he wants to make our flesh creep.
	The truth is that the number of unqualified teachers in academies has risen only because the number of academies has increased so much. In fact, the proportion of unqualified teachers in academies has halved since 2010, from 9.6% to 4.8%, and the number of qualified teachers in academies has increased by 460%—North Korean levels of achievement under the coalition Government.

Andrew Percy: I am sorry to intervene on the Secretary of State halfway through his assessment of North Korean education. May I take him back to the issue of unqualified teachers under the previous Government? We have heard the repeated myth that they had to be on course to qualification. Will he confirm that under the previous Government schools could employ instructors permanently to teach subjects? As they did in my school, they taught classes and taught subjects on a permanent basis.

Michael Gove: Not for the first time and I am sure not for the last time, my hon. Friend hits the nail squarely on the head. It has now been the case for some time that schools can advertise for and employ instructors, trainees or others.

Nicholas Dakin: They are paid significantly less.

Michael Gove: We will come to that.
	It is important to recognise that situation, because that is exactly what has happened in the school referred to several times in this Chamber and elsewhere by the shadow Secretary of State—the South Leeds academy. When he first raised the issue, I was genuinely concerned, because he said that unqualified teachers might have been hired with just a few GCSEs. If such people were teachers in the classroom, that would be a genuine cause for concern. He alleged that the academy could do that only because of our changes in policy. [Interruption.] No, absolutely not. The South Leeds academy does not have the power in its funding agreement to hire unqualified teachers, because its funding agreement was constructed, written and agreed before the change in policy. The South Leeds academy has advertised for trainees under a policy that has been in place since at least 1982.
	I made that point in this House, and I invited the hon. Gentleman to acknowledge that he had made a mistake. I did so as graciously as I could. [Interruption.] No. I hoped that he would take the trouble to check his facts, but he did not. I have received a letter from the chief executive officer and director of Schools Partnership
	Trust Academies, which is responsible for the school. Of the specific case of South Leeds academy, he said: “The post advertised was for the appointment of trainees to support the teaching of mathematics. This was not made clear in the advert, which was placed in error. Once I became aware of the issue, the advert was withdrawn. A statement was placed on our website to clarify the matter.”
	Moreover, I drew that matter to the attention of the shadow Secretary of State in the House. I told him that he was persisting in error, and I gave him an opportunity to retract. He chose not to do so. Will he now take the opportunity to apologise to the South Leeds academy and to the House for getting his facts wrong?
	I note that he had the opportunity then to apologise.

Kevin Brennan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When a Member sits down, as the Secretary of State has just done, is that not the end of their speech?

Dawn Primarolo: Alas, Mr Brennan, you are not in the Chair today. [Interruption.] You can sit down, Secretary of State, because I can deal with this. Secretary of State, sit down! This is a serious debate and it would help me enormously if Members behaved within the conventions and rules of the House. Do not shout at each other. Do not try to help me out—I have a Clerk who will do that, should I need it. The Secretary of State has not concluded his speech and he should not sit down until he has.

Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Might I be allowed to bring you an apple?

Dawn Primarolo: No. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the conventions of the House do not allow us to accept presents or to eat in the Chamber.

Michael Gove: My point was a serious one. I have given the shadow Secretary of State and everyone on the Opposition Front Bench the opportunity to correct the record. I hope that we will hear no more of the South Leeds academy and its policy of hiring unqualified teachers, taking advantage of a policy change that we made, because I have had the opportunity, thanks to your generosity, Madam Deputy Speaker, to make it entirely clear that he was—inadvertently, I am sure—in error, notwithstanding the fact that I reminded him of the facts.

Kevin Brennan: On a serious point, I have attempted on several occasions to get an answer from the Secretary of State and his Ministers on what the qualifications of the teaching staff of the Al-Madinah free school were from September 2013. On each occasion, I have been told that it would be inappropriate to reveal to the public what the qualifications of the teachers were at that troubled school. If the Secretary of State is going to be transparent and open about teaching qualifications, will he promise to publish those qualifications immediately?

Michael Gove: I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. Absolutely; we will ensure that all the information that can be put into the public domain is put into the public
	domain, unless we are prevented from doing so for legal reasons. I accept the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman’s point. In return, I hope that he will reflect on the points that I have made about South Leeds academy—that it cannot hire unqualified teachers under its funding agreement, that the advert was for the hiring of trainees and that it has advertised in that way since at least 1982—and in due course, whenever it is appropriate, apologise to the school and to the House. Hopefully we can then make progress.

Clive Efford: The Secretary of State has gone to the trouble of getting a letter from South Leeds academy to make his argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) has said that he has been in contact with the Secretary of State’s office constantly to get similar information about Al-Madinah, but he has not bothered to investigate that school in the same way. Why is that?

Michael Gove: We have taken significant trouble to deal with the situation at Al-Madinah.

Clive Efford: You have not got information in the same way.

Michael Gove: I am seeking to answer the first of the questions that the hon. Gentleman put to me. The head teacher of South Leeds academy wrote to me, but he also sought to inform everyone through a press statement at the time. Because the shadow Secretary of State wanted to make a political point without taking the trouble to check the facts, he made an error. It is because of that that I have asked him to recant.

Chris Skidmore: While my right hon. Friend is speaking of accuracy, facts and the true version of events, does he recall that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) mentioned in his speech that the head of Ofsted, Sir Michael Wilshaw, was opposed to the use of unqualified teachers? In an article in The Daily Telegraph on 9 December 2013, when asked whether he supported the use of unqualified teachers, the head of Ofsted replied,
	“Yes I do. I have done it.”
	On the record, the head of Ofsted said that he is in favour of using unqualified teachers. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore retract the statement he made in his speech?

Michael Gove: That is a very well made point.—[Interruption.] I should say to the shadow schools Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), that the credibility with which he speaks on education is undermined by what is happening in his jurisdiction. One reason why Sir Michael Wilshaw and others recognise that it can often be a good idea to employ people who do not at that time have qualified teacher status, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) pointed out, is that there are many teachers in the independent sector who are doing an outstanding job and whom we would want to have in our schools.
	One of the direct consequences of the policy that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central spelled out would be that any teacher in the private sector who did
	not have qualified teacher status would not be able to help the state sector. Where would that leave Liverpool college? Its head teacher does not have QTS, yet it is an outstanding independent school that has been taken into the state sector under our free school programme. Would the hon. Gentleman sack the head teacher and say that decades of outstanding academic achievement are worthless because he knows more about education than the head teacher of Liverpool college?
	If the hon. Gentleman thinks that, would he say the same thing to the head teacher of Brighton college, Richard Cairns, who was voted the most outstanding head teacher in the independent sector and was responsible for setting up the London Academy of Excellence? That is another free school that was set up under our programme, and it has just taken children from working-class backgrounds in the east of London, represented by the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who is no longer in her place, and guaranteed their accession to our best universities. Richard Cairns does not have QTS, yet he has run an outstanding independent school and an outstanding state school. According to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, he does not know his own job. Who is better qualified to lead schools, the hon. Gentleman or Richard Cairns and the headmaster of Liverpool college? Should we erect barriers to prevent the excellence that is available in the independent sector from being made available in the state sector? I had thought that the role of progressives was to spread excellence rather than ration it, but it appears to me that the Labour party has abandoned progressivism.

Nicholas Dakin: I have led a college and managed teachers and other educational staff. Does the Secretary of State recognise that any accreditation system can include a process for accreditation of prior learning, which would deal slickly with the issues that he has raised?

Michael Gove: It might, or it might not, but the point is that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central said in his speech that teachers in the independent sector who did not have QTS would have to acquire it to work in the state sector. That means that state schools could not poach great teachers from independent schools, there could be no effective collaboration between them and we would not be able to lift standards in all state schools by using the expertise that others pay for.

Tristram Hunt: I was at the London Academy of Excellence on Friday with Richard Cairns and its excellent headmaster Rob Wilne, both of whom expressed great support for Labour’s policy of focusing on continuing professional development and raising the status and enhancing the standing of teachers. If I were the Secretary of State, before I talked about the London Academy of Excellence I might actually go and visit it.

Michael Gove: I note that the hon. Gentleman did not respond to my point about Richard Cairns not having QTS, and that he did not take the opportunity of returning to the Dispatch Box to apologise for stating things in the House that were not true. We will draw our own conclusions about his reliability as an expert witness.

Nadine Dorries: As someone who was educated in the state sector and had the privilege of being able to send some of my children to independent schools at some
	stages, it has always amazed and upset me that independent school children have had the advantage of a different standard of teaching. I have seen that many teachers in the independent sector have not been formally qualified, but they have brought huge inspiration, expertise and skills from their own field. The children have benefited hugely, as the results show.

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under Labour policy, no state school could poach an outstanding teacher from an independent school. It would put restrictions on getting the best teachers from the independent sector into the state sector, which makes no sense at all.
	I know that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central has a passion for independent schools, having attended one, but he says that he also has a passion for what he calls the “forgotten 50%”—those pursuing vocational education. One problem with his policy is that if we were to implement it, we would be going against the Wolf report on vocational education, which his two predecessors accepted. It stated:
	“Many schools believe that it is impossible to bring professionals in to demonstrate/teach even part of a course without requiring the presence of…salaried teaching staff”
	or qualified teaching status.
	“This further reduces the incidence of high quality vocational teaching, delivered to the standards that industries actually require.”
	What happened to the forgotten 50% when the hon. Gentleman was coming up with his policy? He forgot about them.
	This morning, Professor Alison Wolf appeared in front of the Select Committee on Education and said:
	“I would be desperately sorry if the result of this…move”—
	by Labour—
	“was to actually make it harder, indeed impossible, to get vocational experts into the classrooms to teach their own subject and show their own expertise, because they are the ones who motivate. The fantastic vocational teaching that you see is done by people who have actually worked in the area, can talk to kids and know what is going to happen and know where it is taking them.”
	A direct result of the hon. Gentleman’s policy is to knock one of the principal props of Alison Wolf’s report, which is improving the quality of vocational and technical education for the so-called forgotten 50%—and yet he does not care.
	The hon. Gentleman should listen to someone who has been Education Secretary and knows exactly the importance of bringing in the maximum amount of talent and what helping working-class children involves. When the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) was on “This Week” in October 2013, he spoke to a musician, Nicola Benedetti, about the importance of securing music teachers who had real talent. He said:
	“I think music is a specialist subject. My worry is that many children won’t have the opportunity to learn to play a musical instrument. If you find someone who is a great musician but they can’t spend three years getting the proper teaching qualifications, I think you should use them.”
	I agree with him.

Graham Stuart: When we questioned Alison Wolf about this issue this morning I asked her about a study, which I suggested to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) should be carried out before such a policy is implanted. She said:
	“I think it’s important to do that and particularly in respect of vocational courses. I remember a case where in Texas they did something similar and the main people who got sacked were, I am afraid, what they call shop-teachers.”
	Is there a danger that we will take out those who are re-engaging people in the classroom, re-engaging children and helping them with vocational courses, if the Labour party does not, at the very least, commit to a piece of research before going ahead with this policy?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is right on both counts. First, the Opposition’s policy would be destructive of high-quality technical education, and secondly, there is not a single shred of academic evidence that could be adduced by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central in support of his policy.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about the importance of continuous professional development, but he did not refer to the network of teaching schools that we have established and the brilliant work they are doing. He referred to the Prince’s Teaching Institute, but did not quote what its leader, Bernice McCabe, said this week when she thanked the Government for restoring the status and prestige of teachers, which had been undermined by the previous Labour Government. He made a comparison with what the General Medical Council does with the revalidation of doctors, but what he did not do while talking about professionalism, is his homework. The whole point is that many doctors, like many lawyers, are either self-employed or in partnerships. Where they are directly employed in the public sector under management in hospitals, those who run the hospitals perform the process of revalidation, exactly like headmasters do in schools. That is not by using an external body, but by doing it internally.
	I am all for making sure we have employers who are capable of ensuring high-quality continuous professional development, but the truth is that we do have them—they are called head teachers. The hon. Gentleman’s policy does not trust head teachers sufficiently. He want to undermine their autonomy over whom they can hire and whom they can fire, and he wants to undermine their autonomy to choose the type of continuous professional development and evaluation that they believe is right for their teachers.
	I know that when I talk about autonomy the hon. Gentleman will say, “Aha. There he is again. Gove is talking about structures, not standards.” Indeed, in his speech he said that he believes in standards not structures. Let me quote from a book called “A Journey”, written by a mutual friend of ours:
	“We had come to power in 1997 saying it was “standards not structures” that mattered…This was fine as a piece of rhetoric; and positively beneficial as a piece of politics. Unfortunately, as I began to realise when experience started to shape our thinking, it was bunkum as a piece of policy. The whole point is that structures beget standards.”
	How a service is configured affects outcomes. Of all the people qualified to teach Labour politicians how to run and reform public services, there is no one better than the author of those words: Tony Blair. That is why we are implementing Blairite progressive policies, but unfortunately, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central is taking his cue lines from the National Union of Teachers and the educational establishment. That is why everyone who believes in driving quality up, reforming
	education, and a progressive future for children should reject this nonsensical, ungrammatical and regressive motion.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. There is a time limit of six minutes—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Would Members like to sit down? I have been in this House for a very long time. In all that time—since 1987—it has been the convention that, when the Speaker is on their feet, Members resume their seats. It helps proceedings enormously.
	There is a six-minute time limit on all Back-Bench speeches, starting now.

Barry Sheerman: I, too, have been in the House a very long time, Madam Deputy Speaker. The conventions are what they are. [Laughter.] I respect all of them. They make this a charming place to work.
	I am speaking in favour of the Opposition motion, but I will try to be reasonably balanced. My 10 years as Chairman of the Education Committee or whatever it was called taught me that we have made a lot of sound and fury about the differences between the Conservatives and Labour over the years, but an awful lot joins us together in policy development over the period.
	I say to the Secretary of State that the debate is an important one. I have a great deal of respect for him, but his speech exemplified the Walter Mitty attitude he puts over to the world. I know that, in his heart and in his brain, he loves education and the job of Secretary of State, and that he is passionate about driving standards up. However, the way in which he often puts his case in the House and outside drives everyone mad. He spoke for more than 20 minutes, and I tried not to make an unhelpful intervention. There were lots of party political jibes and counter-jibes. A lot of people out there who are interested in education want Government and Opposition Members to address the issues. They want us to say, “Look. There are important challenges. Together, we can get it right.” I am getting to the age at which I am intolerant of the argy-bargy that goes on in such debates. On today’s performance, the Secretary of State was the one who lowered the tone—I say that even though I respect him.
	Let us concentrate on the quality of teaching. There is a great deal of stuff out there on the priorities. I still go to more schools than most Members of Parliament. My great hobby and passion is going to schools and assessing them. When I became Chairman of the Committee, I did not know how to read a school. Only when I did my first inquiry into primary education did I learn. Really good experts took me into schools and said, “This is how you read a school. This is how you can be conned by the up-front presentation.” I got a kind of Ofsted inspector’s short course on ascertaining the quality of a school and have gained a lot of experience.
	There is a lot of codology. I assure hon. Members that they can go to schools where somebody on the staff will say awful things such as, “You realise that we can’t teach here. We’re just social workers.” It drives me mad when they say that. The fact is that all good teachers look at the child holistically. Many of a child’s barriers to learning are found in a bad home environment or the lack of the English language. Children have a complex range of challenges to surmount to learn.
	Another thing people say is, “What do you expect us to do with the children in an area like this one?” They suggest that, because there is a great deal of poverty and deprivation, children cannot be taught. One of the great things about Sir Michael Wilshaw as a chief inspector is his ability to say, “When someone says that to you, look to the school.” He can say to the head teacher and staff, “Funnily enough, there is a school not far from here”—it could even be on the other side of the country—“with exactly the same social composition in the neighbourhood. It is doing so much better than you. What is the reason for that?” That is why I am a great admirer of Sir Michael Wilshaw. I hoped that the Secretary of State, in his speech today, would have said what had happened last week to make a modest man, who I have known for a long time and who ran one of the best academies in the country, so angry as to accuse the Department for Education of briefing against him. It has been said outside this House, but I have not heard the Secretary of State explain why the chief inspector was driven to make that statement in The Sunday Times.
	We depend on the inspectorate to drive up standards. It is key to knowing the quality of teaching in our land. If we do not have an inspector and an inspectorate that does the job properly we are in trouble. The inspectorate is not perfect. I think it is well led at the moment: the chief inspector is excellent and he has a core team. He still struggles with something that I think goes back to 1972, which is that many people believe that Ofsted inspectors are independently trained within Ofsted. They are actually—

Dawn Primarolo: Order.

Graham Stuart: It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. One hundred and forty years ago, Benjamin Disraeli said:
	“Upon the education of the people of this country the fate of this country depends.”—[Official Report, 15 June 1874; Vol. 219, c. 1618.]
	His words are as true today as they were at the time.
	I am glad that the shadow Front-Bench team grasp the central importance of teacher quality to driving up standards in our schools. However, I doubt I am alone in feeling that today we are living through the parliamentary equivalent of groundhog day. Almost exactly three months ago, the Opposition secured a debate on this topic. The House will remember that during the course of that debate I challenged the shadow Secretary of State to supply the evidence showing that employing non-qualified teacher status teachers in our state schools was damaging children’s prospects, or to provide examples of head teachers who were taking on unqualified teachers just to save money or sticking them with low-achieving children. If that evidence was produced, we could then review the impact of non-QTS teachers on educational standards and consider, on that evidence, whether to outlaw them. There was no answer to my question.
	Ahead of the speech made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), I was confident that he must have uncovered compelling new evidence on the importance of QTS—that he and his team must have been working through the night to provide devastating proof on why QTS is so vital, and why teachers without QTS should be forced out of a job. I challenged him on that again today and he had no answer.
	When I asked the hon. Gentleman at least to consider conducting an inquiry to find evidence before making a decision, he suggested that I was partial because three months ago, and again today, I took issue with him on this matter. If I appeared aggressive in doing so, it was not because I sit on the Government Benches. I could list the issues on which I disagree with the Secretary of State and on which I am happy to challenge him in this House. However, when the Government are right and the Opposition are putting forward an irresponsible policy that is wrong, it is my duty to challenge it.

Michael Gove: I am very grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for giving way. If there is an iron-clad link between possession of qualified teacher status and automatic success in pedagogy, why does the part of the country with the highest proportion of unqualified teachers, inner London, have the best state education, and why are two schools with 100% QTS teachers in Stoke-on-Trent in special measures?

Graham Stuart: I thank the Secretary of State. The point, if the shadow Secretary of State will listen, is that the evidence is anecdotal. To bring in such a change, if one believes in evidence-based policy making, the hon. Gentleman should do the work first, gather the evidence and make sure he is doing the right thing before outlawing these teachers.
	Over the past 48 hours, I have asked any number of experts what studies have been conducted into the quality of QTS teachers as opposed to non-QTS teachers. I have spoken to the Education Committee Clerk to see whether the Committee is aware of any studies, to academic experts such as Alan Smithers at the university of Buckingham, an adviser to my Committee, to the Institute of Education and to Ofsted, but none could identify any empirical surveys in this area.
	I turned, then, to the teaching profession itself and contacted the principals of several academies in Hull to hear about their experiences. I spoke to people such as Dr Cathy Taylor, the head of the Sirius academy, who told me that her school employed five teachers without QTS out of a total teaching strength of about 87. Those five include excellent teachers in art and maths, both of whom are completing their teaching qualifications, Members will be delighted to hear, but they also include specialists in ICT and salon services. The Sirius academy has a strong professional development programme, and Dr Taylor was clear that she would never employ more non-QTS staff than could be properly mentored within the school.
	I also spoke to Andy Grace, the principal of the Boulevard academy. He does not employ non-QTS teachers on permanent contracts, but the academy employs peripatetic, non-QTS staff to provide expert tuition in fields such as sport, art and music, helping to stretch able students.

Bill Esterson: The hon. Gentleman is calling for research into this subject, but he will remember that the Education Committee’s report, “Great Teachers”, urged the Government, as a matter of importance, to undertake such research. I am not aware of their having carried it out. Will he take this opportunity to repeat that request to the Secretary of State?

Graham Stuart: I would welcome such research, but the fundamental position of the Secretary of State is that, within a strong accountability system, we should trust head teachers. The number of non-QTS teachers is reducing. There are many fewer now than when Labour was in power, and the shadow Secretary of State’s refusal in successive debates to acknowledge that is mildly irritating. We have fewer of them and there is strong accountability, yet we keep hearing this proposal to get rid of them.
	That point echoes the comments by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson):
	“If you find someone who is a great musician but they can’t spend three years getting the proper teaching qualifications, I think you should use them”.
	He gets it; it is a shame that the Opposition Front-Bench team do not appear to do so. When it comes to the evidence for their campaign, the Opposition are quieter than the library of a Trappist monastery.
	Is the shadow Secretary of State in favour of evidence-based policy making? I know that he would not want to score political points if it were to hurt our children’s education. He has had three months since the last debate to find evidence that non-QTS teachers are damaging schooling. He has had three months to find evidence that moving a teacher without QTS to QTS on the job improves learning in their classes. Has he found any evidence? If so, where is it? Why does he not share it with us? If he could point us in the right direction, I am sure my Committee would be happy to pursue the matter. If unqualified teachers are doing harm, let us move fast to get rid of them.

Tristram Hunt: The Chairman of the Select Committee will know, from the work of Andreas Schleicher of the OECD, that data from the programme for international student assessment have made it clear that educational jurisdictions with the highest qualified teachers—from Finland and South Korea to Singapore and Shanghai—perform most effectively. Can he give us the evidence that unqualified teachers are the route to improving standards and closing the attainment gap?

Graham Stuart: Before teachers without QTS, whose number has reduced, are removed from the system, the shadow Secretary of State needs to show why that is a good idea. When Charles Parker, the chief executive of the Baker Dearing Trust, came before the Committee this morning, he said of people who taught in university technical colleges, including those with PhDs: “They’re amazing people, they are highly professional, but they may not be highly professional in the sense of being qualified teachers.” Before they are got rid of, let us check that there are not more good than bad; let us ensure that they are not doing good. If they are doing good and the hon. Gentleman gets rid of them, it will damage not just his conscience, but the education of the children whom he is duty bound to protect.
	I understand that the hon. Gentleman has to make an impact in his new brief, and to secure his place in the shadow Cabinet. It cannot be easy having to mollify the resurgent left of his party, let alone the trade unions which bankroll almost every aspect of his party’s actions. However, I urge him not to put politics ahead of the evidence, and I know that he would not put ambition ahead of principle.
	For those of us on the Back Benches who are trying to work out how best to improve educational opportunities for our constituents, this debate is bizarre, and I ask the shadow Secretary of State to change his policy.

Stephen Twigg: Although when I was shadow Secretary of State I enjoyed working on a cross-party basis with the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), I have to say that his speech was unnecessarily partisan and did not add to the merits of this important debate.
	This debate is about how we can both raise the quality of education and narrow the achievement gap. We have all welcomed the improvement in results, and, in particular, the fall in the number of schools that are below the floor target. That is of huge benefit to our society and our education system. However, the Demos report, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), is of great concern. It shows that if we take inner London out of the picture, we see a worsening position—a widening of the achievement gap between those from the richest backgrounds and those from the poorest—and that must be of concern to Members in all parts of the House.
	How can we change the position? I think that the big challenge for all of us who have been engaged in education policy in the House, in government or in opposition, is to step back as politicians and policy makers, and to empower teachers and school leaders to lead that change. I welcome the motion, because it is about the profession leading change, and in my short speech I want to refer to some of the teaching pioneers who are already doing that.
	The brilliant organisation Teaching Leaders is seeking to create the middle leaders of the future who can ensure that our schools improve, particularly those that serve the most deprived communities. ResearchED 2013 was set up as a grass-roots project by people who loved education and loved teaching, but felt detached from the education debate. They came together to create a national conference for teachers, researchers and others who were interested in how we inform the way in which we teach our children, in drawing out the best of policy theory and practice, and in finding out what works in the classroom. Then there is the long-standing and brilliant work of subject associations. When I was an education Minister, I once went to the Geography Association’s Easter conference. Teachers were attending it voluntarily, during their Easter break, and were exchanging in a passionate way their interest in, and information about, their subject. That, I think, must be the way forward, but how can we best get to where we want to be?
	There is a great deal of discussion about what happened under the last Government, but I think that we did some fantastic things to empower teachers. The Secretary of State mentioned Teach First. I am proud to have given Teach First the go-ahead when I was a Minister, 11 years ago. Its aim is to attract the best and the brightest graduates to teaching, and then to empower those teachers to use the latest research and evidence to inform their classroom practice. The sponsoring of academies was intended to ensure that the best teachers went into the schools that served the neighbourhoods with the greatest social and economic need. The London Challenge has succeeded in changing a position in which London schools were below the national average, to one in which London has the best-performing secondary schools in the country.
	However, we also got some things wrong. Sometimes we were too centralist. We directed too much from Whitehall: there was too much of a “The Department knows best” approach. My former boss, Baroness Morris—Estelle Morris—said this week that the danger of such a centralised approach was that while the policy might be
	“designed to empower teachers and raise the status of the profession, it was seen as being owned by the government and not by the profession itself.”
	That is why I think that the movement initiated by the profession in favour of a royal college of teaching is vital, and deserves the cross-party commitment that it has attracted so far. I believe that it could represent a significant step forward for the teaching profession.

Graham Stuart: Will the hon. Gentleman expand on his thoughts about the college of teaching?

Stephen Twigg: I am grateful for the extra minute. That is what I was about to do.
	It is absolutely right that the movement is independent of Government and independent of politics. I ask the Minister: if, and only if, the royal college comes to the Government to ask for financial help on start-up costs, will the Government consider providing that start-up support? We want something that is independent, but if it needs that help when it is getting set up, can they give it that support?
	I want to make a point that I have made before and that is incredibly important. The countries that have been most successful in education have often forged a cross-party consensus and a wider consensus in society about education and its role. Look, for example, at Germany, and at the technical and vocational education system in Switzerland. Switzerland has a national centre for the use of evidence in education. A number of people, particularly John Dunford but also Baroness Morris, have put forward that idea, whose time has come. I called for it two years ago, when I used the title “Office for Educational Improvement” and the Secretary of State’s response was, “We already have such an office—it is called the Government.” I took that in good humour but I do not think that that is a good enough answer.
	Part of the problem with education in this country, under successive Governments of different parties, is that the line between education and politics has been drawn in the wrong place. Politicians rightly decide how much money should be available, how it should be divided and the legal structure for education, but I do not think that politicians should get involved in the pedagogy and the curriculum. The professionals should
	lead on that and I believe that a centre for evidence could play a crucial role in delivering that. I welcome the opportunity today for a serious debate about how we enhance teacher professionalism, and promote greater continuing professional development and the opportunity for teachers themselves to lead that, but let us also say that evidence can play a much bigger role in education policy.
	The morale of the teaching profession matters. It is undoubtedly the case—the Secretary of State needs to acknowledge this—that morale at the moment in school classrooms is low. Despite having this fantastic generation of teachers and results getting better, morale is low. He has to accept the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) that sometimes the Secretary of State’s rhetoric, in this place and outside, has contributed to that decline in morale. I hope that that is something that he can reconsider.

Simon Wright: As the OECD and Members in the debate have highlighted, teachers are the most important resource of any school. On these Benches, we support greater professional freedom and autonomy for our schools and teachers while also ensuring that every parent has a guarantee that the school their child attends meets certain core standards of teaching and care. Liberal Democrats want every pupil in every state-funded school to benefit from the coalition’s slimmed-down national curriculum and freedom from overly centralised Whitehall regulations. We also believe that parents want and expect their child to be taught by a qualified teacher.
	Although our two parties in coalition have differences of opinion in these areas, by working together, we have taken great steps to encourage the best graduates into the profession. We have massively expanded Teach First and made more scholarships and bursaries available to help to recruit the most talented graduates with the potential to be brilliant teachers in key subjects. The teaching schools network will help to support the lifelong learning of teachers. I welcome the fact that more than seven out of 10 new teachers now have a first or upper-second class degree, the highest proportion ever recorded, as the Secretary of State noted. Teaching is attracting more of the country’s top-tier graduates.
	More and more teachers are being publicly recognised for their contribution to society. Around one in 10 of all honours last year were awarded to people from the world of education. The rising status of the teaching profession is reflected in the comments of the former editor of The Times Educational Supplement, Gerard Kelly, who wrote last September:
	“Contrary to most reports, teaching in Britain has never been in better health.”
	He added:
	“Most encouraging of all are the widespread acceptance that a ‘satisfactory’ education isn't really good enough and the determination of schools and teachers to take ownership of their profession, sharing ideas and best practice in ways unknown only a few years ago.”
	Yet there is still more that can be done, led by the profession, to support teachers once they enter teaching. Continuous professional development must be of a consistently high standard and relevance to enable teachers to update and refresh their pedagogy and subject-specific
	skills. While there is undoubtedly good practice in the provision of teacher CPD—as the Government’s White Paper “The Importance of Teaching” highlighted—too little teacher training takes place on the job, and too much involves compliance with bureaucratic initiatives rather than working with other teachers to develop effective practice. The White Paper states that two thirds of professional development involves passive learning, such as sitting and listening to a presentation.
	The teaching profession itself is best placed to develop a system of CPD beyond initial teacher training, and to make clear what teachers should expect throughout their careers. It is preferable for the profession itself to lead and design that process, rather than Whitehall imposing a model, and a royal college of teaching would be an obvious body to do that work. A royal college of teaching could provide a strong voice for teachers to press the case for their ongoing professional development, including promoting time and resources, and perhaps also acting as an accreditor of CPD activity so that high standards could be promoted. The role of the Government in establishing a royal college of teaching should be minimal; its establishment should be driven by the profession. However, the Department for Education could help to facilitate its creation, perhaps by offering discussions over roles that the college could take on from the Department and perhaps by providing arm’s length financial backing.
	Another way to support CPD is by ensuring that each teacher has an individual CPD plan, subject to regular review and providing both an entitlement to and an expectation of ongoing training based on their own needs. Schools would ensure that each teacher had such a plan, and Ofsted could play a role in reviewing their effectiveness. We also need to ensure that we get the maximum benefit from the Government’s support for the Education Endowment Foundation. The EEF is supporting important research and practice that could deliver innovation in classrooms to address the needs of disadvantaged children. I would like Ministers to discuss with the EEF whether it could play an even greater role in evaluating and disseminating the application of research to classroom practice.
	Teachers want the opportunity to enhance and update their own knowledge base, but I have reservations about a relicensing system on several grounds: I believe it risks being an over-bureaucratic box-ticking exercise; I worry that the focus will be on removing a few of the weakest teachers in our schools rather than on providing positive encouragement for all teachers to become great teachers; and I am concerned about the implications for head teachers if an external body were to overrule a head teacher’s judgment as to whether a teacher was deemed to be suitable.
	I welcome the focus today on raising the status of teachers in our classrooms. We must keep that debate at the centre of our thinking if we are to expect all of the nearly 450,000 teachers in classrooms to achieve their very best on behalf of the children they teach, and if we are to build on the positive progress made by the coalition Government.

Pat McFadden: I very much welcome this debate and the emphasis that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central
	(Tristram Hunt) has placed on teaching standards and quality. Teaching is a tough job, and those who devote their lives to helping children deserve our respect and admiration. I think we all remember the particular teachers who inspired us. I remember Jack McLaughlin, my English teacher at Holyrood secondary school in Glasgow, who taught me more about the love of words than anyone else I have ever met. So, good teaching can be inspiring, but poor teaching leads to lack of opportunity and to unfulfilled lives.
	Just before Christmas, Ofsted produced its annual report. In it, a table shows the proportion of children in each local authority who go to good or outstanding schools. It shows that primary school children in my local authority area of Wolverhampton have a lower chance of going to a good or outstanding school than those living anywhere else in England. If that is not a call to action, and a call to arms, I do not know what is. Wolverhampton does have some good and outstanding schools, and some excellent, inspirational teachers. In places, it also has strong leadership that is intolerant of failure. As the Ofsted table starkly illustrates, however, it does not have enough of those things. That means that too many local children are not getting the education they deserve and are being denied the opportunity to make the best of their lives.

Lindsay Roy: Will my right hon. Friend explain why Ofsted has not intervened in that case?

Pat McFadden: I am coming on to what I would like from Ofsted in that situation. Nothing is more important for opportunity and social mobility than a good education. Mediocrity, low ambitions and a weary acceptance of failure cut off opportunity for young people. We need a strong determined response to this report and its verdict. What should the elements of that be? First, there is no point in shooting the messenger. We cannot confront a problem if we deny that we have one. We must accept the verdict and vow never to be in such a position again. Improving education standards should be accepted as the single biggest challenge facing the city. It should become a cause that unites everyone—schools, the local authority, the university, employers and the local MPs.
	Secondly, we must set this discussion about deprivation and the attainment gap in the right context. There is an attainment gap. Of course teaching kids from a deprived background is tougher than teaching kids from homes full of books and with the social capital to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central referred.
	It can never be right to blame deprivation for educational failure. There are plenty of areas in the Ofsted report with deprivation levels as high as, or higher than, Wolverhampton that have significantly better achievement. Apart from the Ofsted table, there is another more fundamental reason why we cannot use deprivation as an excuse—it absolves us of the responsibility to act. It writes off the children and gets everyone else off the hook, and that is a dereliction of duty to children who need, more than anyone, the opportunity that a good education brings.
	I do not believe that children in Wolverhampton are any less able than children from anywhere else. They should never be written off or be told, as I have been told, that
	“our black country kids are not that academic.”
	I will never believe or accept that.
	What are the other elements of a turnaround? We need good leadership. We know that the people who know best about turnarounds are the good leaders already in our schools. We need more of that, and we need the good schools to mentor the struggling ones to help them raise their game.

Bill Esterson: My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) talked about London Challenge and the huge success that happened right across London. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way of addressing the problems in Wolverhampton would be to have that whole system and a thorough investment in skills?

Damian Hinds: They have had it.

Bill Esterson: The hon. Gentleman says that they have had it. I am talking on a much more extensive scale.

Pat McFadden: I agree. The previous Government had a black country challenge for precisely those reasons, and the Secretary of State did not continue with it, which is a great shame given the support that we need.
	Apart from good leadership in schools, the second thing we need is that the local authority function to challenge standards and improve must be carried out with passion and a determined focus on school improvement.
	Thirdly, we need curiosity and a willingness to learn from what has worked elsewhere. If that means changing the way we do things, then so be it. The only vested interest that matters in this is the vested interest of the pupils themselves. Nothing should get in the way of improving the opportunities for them.
	The school environment has changed. The clock cannot be rewound. The future landscape will inevitably be a more varied one, and we must learn from the turnaround experience elsewhere.
	My fourth point is directed at the Minister so that she addresses it in her wind-up. Areas that accept a verdict, such as that of Ofsted, as I have urged Wolverhampton to do, also need help in turning things around. There is not unlimited school improvement and turnaround capacity in every part of the country. As I said earlier, we should not shoot the messenger. However, it is not enough simply to pass damning verdicts and then walk away. If Wolverhampton responds by saying that it accepts the verdict in the Ofsted report, understands that there is a problem and wants to turn things around, the Department for Education and Ofsted have a duty to play their part in helping the city to do that.
	I have already arranged to meet the regional head of Ofsted to discuss the matter in the next couple of weeks and I know that relations between the Department and Ofsted have been damaged by the events of the past week. I want the Minister to address this specific point:
	will she and the Secretary of State back Ofsted in a role that involves not just passing verdicts on schools but helping areas such as the one I represent to turn the situation around and improve opportunities for the future?

Michael Gove: The right hon. Gentleman is giving an outstanding speech and I agree with almost every word that he has said. He has given me the opportunity to place on record my admiration for the work that Sir Michael Wilshaw has led to ensure that HMIS—

Kevin Brennan: Who briefed it?

Michael Gove: I will ignore that comment.
	I am grateful to Sir Michael for the work that he has done in ensuring that HMIS can play a role in school improvement. Another thing we need to do is ensure that we have more national leaders of education deployed. If the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) would like to invite me to visit his constituency to ensure that that work can advance, I would be delighted to accept.

Pat McFadden: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his intervention, and as he has expressed his admiration I would encourage him to tell his Department and those who work for him of that too.
	I believe that we should respond to the report and not with the usual series of excuses for educational failure, but by saying that the only interest that matters is that of the pupils themselves. They deserve the best, they deserve the highest ambitions and they must never be written off. I hope that Wolverhampton is up for the challenge, but the city will need help to turn around. I hope that the Secretary of State will follow through on what he has said and give us the help we will need.

Chris Skidmore: I echo the remarks made by the shadow Secretary of State, who said that we should put our differences aside and start the debate in the spirit of bipartisanship. It might be helpful to put on the record what we can welcome and agree on. We can welcome the fact that the number of unqualified teachers has fallen by 3,000 since 2010, down 20% from a high of 18,600 in 2010. We can also welcome the fact that the proportion of unqualified teachers has dropped in academies from 9.6% of all teachers in 2010 to 4.8% today. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) was absolutely right to talk about Teach First as one of the great successes of the previous Government, and it is booming. In 2015, there will be 2,000 graduates from Teach First, four times as many as in 2010. This year, the No. 1 destination for Oxbridge graduates is teaching, and we should all be very proud of that fact.
	We should welcome the establishment of School Direct, under which 9,580 teachers are being trained in a school setting. The success of School Direct is highlighted by the fact that demand far exceeds the number of places. There was demand for 17,700 places, so I hope that the scheme will grow. It has been proven to have a far better retention rate than a university-based PGCE.
	We should welcome the 363 teaching schools that have been established, just as we should all welcome the fact that the Government have limited the number of
	resits for teacher training tests in English and maths. Previously, people could take that test—and someone did—50 times. We are ensuring that the PGCE qualification is far more rigorous than it has been. We should welcome that, just as I welcome the statistic that has already been mentioned: the proportion of teachers with degrees at 2:1 or higher rose from 48% in 1998 to 62% in 2010 and is now at 71%. That is a collaborative success between this Government and the previous Government in driving up standards in teacher training and teacher qualifications.
	I also welcome the shadow Secretary of State’s support for performance-related pay to reward excellent teachers. He has done that in the face of opposition from unions and from some of his Back Benchers. It is a brave stance and he deserves credit for it.
	For all our agreement, we are stuck on one problem like it is a broken record. We had this debate back in October, and the shadow Secretary of State seems to fall into a dogmatic, ideological approach that could come from the pages of George Orwell, saying “QTS good, non-QTS bad,” as though QTS has magical properties and bestowing it on teachers will somehow make them excellent. We know that we cannot bottle good teaching and inspiring teachers by slapping on “QTS”. Such a requirement would also restrict the very head teacher freedoms mentioned by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby that we want to encourage.

Andrew Percy: Does my hon. Friend find it bizarre that we hear a lot of noise from the Opposition about how we should be following international examples such as Finland and Singapore, which have very high teaching standards, when in fact the non-PGCE QTS qualification that teachers would gain under the shadow Secretary of State’s policies would not qualify as a teaching qualification in those countries?

Chris Skidmore: That is a good point and I welcome its being placed on the record.
	Another problem is the Labour party’s definition of “working toward QTS” including a two-year cut-off. I would appreciate the shadow Secretary of State putting it on the record whether the axe would come down at the end of that period. Would the 14,000 who are still unqualified simply lose their jobs because they had not gained QTS in that period?
	There is an elephant in the room in this debate in respect of QTS, which is that are plenty of bad teachers who have QTS. The problem is that defining a good teacher as one who has QTS is nothing short of protectionism. The General Teaching Council estimated under the previous Government that there were 17,000 teachers with QTS who were underperforming and should not be in the classroom, but in the past 15 years, and even up to this day, we see bad teachers not being removed from the classroom or sacked, but instead being managed out. Up to 2010, only 18 teachers had been removed altogether from the teaching profession for poor teaching standards. What we see is this “dance of the lemons”—teachers moving from one school to another, into deprived areas, which are the areas that suffer the most. That is a national scandal. We need transparency—

Tristram Hunt: What about revalidation?

Chris Skidmore: I will come to that in a moment, but we need transparency so that we can work out these teacher flows. I encourage the Government to establish a review to find out the patterns of where poorly performing teachers are not removed, but instead go to the worst performing schools in the most deprived areas of the country.
	The shadow Secretary of State shouted from a sedentary position about revalidation. I want to ask him some questions about the process. He has stated that it should happen perhaps every three years—

Tristram Hunt: Where?

Chris Skidmore: According to the time frame I have seen in the media, it is possibly every three years. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could say how often the revalidation process should take place. We have 500,000 teachers in place; how many of them will have to go through the process, and how often? Who will administer the process? Will it be led by Ofsted or by head teachers? Surely revalidation happens all the time—that is the role of the school leadership team and the head teacher. Adding the process of revalidation simply adds extra bureaucracy. Would the hon. Gentleman make extra resources available to schools to continue the re-evaluation process? What will the paperwork look like? These are all valid questions to which teachers watching this debate need to know the answers.
	The hon. Gentleman compares teacher revalidation with what happens with doctors and consultants, but consultants’ revalidation is very different from doctors’ revalidation. Will there be a revalidation process for head teachers and one for Ofsted inspectors? All these questions need to be considered. Will teachers who fail the process lose their qualified teacher status altogether? Will there be revalidation in the private sector?

Graham Stuart: I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s explanation of validation, and hope he can continue for another minute.

Chris Skidmore: I much appreciate that intervention, which came right on time.
	In this debate about QTS, it is important that we as a House and the public know exactly how revalidation—or “teacher MOTs” as the process has become popularly known in the papers—will operate. What is the time frame? What are the consequences of failing the revalidation? Will it take place within schools? If so, what is the point of all this? Is it simply to slap on a party policy? I am not against revalidation, because I believe that it already exists, as we have given the school leadership team and head teachers the power to lead.
	The key point here is that we trust head teachers to be commanders, captains of their ships. The shadow Secretary of State looks at me scornfully. He clearly does not believe in giving head teachers the power to run their schools. If a head teacher wants to employ a teacher without QTS, I have no problem with that, because I trust that head teacher to make the right decision, and head teachers should have that power. That is the crux of this debate and why I will oppose the motion.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. To allow every hon. Member who wishes to speak to do so, the time limit will be reduced to five minutes, although it may be necessary to review that later. I call Nic Dakin.

Nicholas Dakin: The best teachers want to be better teachers. What is changing fastest is the young people themselves and the world that they are being prepared for, both as young people and in the future as citizens and workers. Today, very young children are adept at using a tablet computer, and anyone who goes into a primary school will see electronic devices being used to access information, to draft written text creatively or to make video clips or other inventive things. The world is changing rapidly and teachers need to change too. Pedagogy needs to move with the times. The best teachers have always wanted to be better teachers. That is why in my 30-plus years of what was the chalkface and is now the technology interface, I have always seen teachers talking to each other, keen to share and develop, and keen to learn in the interests of their learners.
	Politicians, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) said in a quite brilliant speech, need to be careful in the way they talk about these matters. They need to talk about the real world, not the world of fantasy classrooms, and about what is actually going on out there. Politicians would do well to start by understanding and celebrating what is going on in teacher education and ongoing teacher development. It is worth understanding how important high quality initial teacher training is in getting recruitment right. We have debated this before, and the Government’s obsession with School Direct is imperilling effective teacher recruitment and induction. It may well be that one of the Government’s achievements is to preside over not only a school places crisis, but a teacher supply crisis as well, while continuing with expensive, unproven pet projects.
	There is a huge amount of excellent practice in schools and colleges, which any consultation on ongoing teacher development should capture, recognise and build on. Every hon. Member who has spoken has paid tribute to the work of teachers throughout the land, and I add my tributes, but it is important to understand the role of induction and support in teachers’ early years. When I was a principal, I always said to staff that supporting a new teacher effectively was one of the most important jobs they did. Get it right and the benefits are huge. Get it wrong and the problems are massive. We need to recognise how appraisal works at the moment, how the process to support staff going through the threshold works and how the ongoing process of keeping evidence of personal development that is commonplace in our schools and colleges works. Anything new needs to build on this. The hon. Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright) was right: we need to build on what is there to avoid unnecessary bureaucratic problems.
	People do not want unqualified doctors to operate on them, so it is hardly surprising that parents do not want unqualified teachers teaching their children. It is about professionalism. Some Government Members seek to suggest that by giving someone qualified status the problem has been solved, but that clearly is not the case.
	This is about recognising the role of professionalism and professionalising the future in a way that secures the future.
	The things that are important in terms of ongoing teacher education are subject knowledge—I have never come across a teacher who does not want to improve their subject knowledge—pedagogy; which is challenging and moves rapidly, particularly at the moment; assessment; and leadership, because many teachers will have leadership roles. Unless school and college leaders are committed to teacher improvement, it will not happen.

Michael Gove: I always enjoy listening to the hon. Gentleman, who is a distinguished figure in further education. Does he agree with me, with the shadow Secretary of State and with Amanda Phillips, the head teacher of a school in Tower Hamlets who recently wrote so passionately about the subject in The Sun, that we need performance-related pay for teachers in order to ensure that we have more effective continuous professional development?

Nicholas Dakin: My personal view is that performance-related pay rarely works in any sphere of life; all it tends to do is push up the cost of pay without tackling the real issues. I think that separating pay and performance is helpful, because we need to focus on getting performance right. If teachers are not up to scratch, we need to tackle that as a separate issue. I have dealt with that myself. Any good school or college leader will do that day in, day out—it is not easy, but it is done. The link between pay and performance, in my experience, is unhelpful more often than not.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby listed the pioneers. I could add to that list, but time is short. I merely draw attention to the strength of his argument, which needs to be listened to.

Damian Hinds: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), my erstwhile colleague on the Education Committee, who spoke passionately and, for the most part, compellingly. I agree entirely that teaching is a noble profession and a vocation.
	I also agree with three key aspects of Labour’s motion. First, it is obviously right that the quality and effectiveness of a school system cannot exceed the quality and effectiveness of the teachers in it. Secondly, those teachers must be able to access the best possible training and ongoing development, and not just in subject knowledge, but in classroom management, lesson planning, progress tracking and all the other things that are so important. Thirdly, I agree about the importance of validating and revalidating teachers’ effectiveness, because if we want to raise the bar and improve the overall level, we cannot wait for a turnaround in all the generations of teachers. I disagree on exactly where and how that validation should happen, however, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore).
	There are also three important deficiencies in the motion. First, in its headline emphasis on qualified teacher status, it refers to a very small proportion of teachers. It is often said that no one forgets a great teacher. Sadly, most of us can also remember at least
	one who was pretty rubbish. I mean that not as a value judgement or a political point, but as a statement of fact; some teachers are better than others, and some are just not very good at teaching. That person we remember was almost certainly a qualified teacher. According to the 2012 work force survey, 96.5% of teachers were qualified, which means 3.5% were not, and the figure is now lower than it was under the previous Government. As the Secretary of State pointed out, the part of the country that does best in education is the part with the highest proportion of non-qualified teachers, and—to add another little fact—four fifths of them are not on a route towards QTS.
	Secondly, the motion is logically inconsistent. If QTS is an irreplaceable standard that every teacher should reach before being let loose in the classroom, how can it possibly be acceptable to have someone teaching who has only just begun the route towards QTS? Thirdly, the motion’s critical deficiency is that it conflates two words that sound a bit the same but are completely different: “qualifications” and “quality.” I note that the conflation extends even to the hallowed institution of our democracy, the Order Paper, because two days ago it referred to a debate on teacher qualifications, but today that has morphed seamlessly into a debate on teacher quality. Either subject would have been an important and interesting subject for debate, but they are completely different topics. That is the fundamental problem here.
	I do not expect a sudden flood of teachers who have not done a PGCE or other qualification to come into teaching. When Mary Beard appeared before the Education Committee, she talked about Jamie’s dream school—I hate to bring it up again—and, when asked what she would have done differently, said, “A bit of training would have been nice before going in to teach the kids.” What an understatement. Of course, an individual going into teaching, let along the school and the parents, wants to know that they have been properly trained to cope with the situation.
	There are, however, circumstances in which somebody has a lot to give, and in which taking the necessary time out for full retraining—something like a PGCE—would put them off. They might be someone who has taught for years in a private school, a university lecturer, a business leader who goes in part-time to do lessons in entrepreneurship, or an artist, musician or actor with unique skills and creativity. I want such things to be available to kids in our state system.
	Private schools educate only 7% of children in this country, but they account for 32% of AAAs at A-level. There are differences between private and state schools, the biggest of which is in the resources of money and facilities that are available. One of the others is the freedom accorded head teachers, reporting to governors, about who they employ and how they run their school. We have a rigorous accountability regime for exams, Ofsted and pupil choice. Within that framework, a head teacher, reporting to their board of governors, should be able to decide the direction in which their school goes. There are things we should focus on to improve teacher quality.

Stephen McPartland: Does my hon. Friend agree that the focus should be on the quality of education for children in schools, as opposed to the quality of delivering paperwork to be revalidated?

Damian Hinds: I absolutely agree.
	We can do other things further to raise teacher quality; that is what the title of this debate turned out to be. The first of those concerns Teach First, which accounts for a relatively small proportion of the overall teaching work force. It is heavily concentrated—half of all Teach First teachers are there—in London, which has come up more than once today. It has what I call a positive disruptive influence in schools in bringing in new ideas, in new teachers learning from teachers it already employs and those teachers learning from new ones and, importantly, in increasing the pool for recruitment and selection. Head teachers often say that having more people, including fresh graduates, applying for jobs helps them a lot. We need greatly to expand Teach First outside London.

Chris Skidmore: Does my hon. Friend welcome the fact that when, this morning, I met and spoke to the chief executive officer of Teach First, Brett Wigdortz, he talked about its tremendous success in the city close to my constituency, Bristol? Teach First has now established centres there, so regionalisation is taking place as we speak.

Damian Hinds: I very much welcome that. Teach First is also doing good work in Bournemouth, a coastal town that has had particular issues. We should look at what impact it has had there—

Ben Gummer: And in Ipswich.

Damian Hinds: And in Ipswich, but I want that to be done on a big scale in Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and all the other places where we can make a big difference. We now have Teach Next, and it would be nice to have “Teach Later” so that people towards the end of their careers in business or academia who want to come back and give something back to schools can do so.
	The second critical thing we could do is further to develop performance management and performance pay. That has been well covered by other hon. Members and, as time is short, I will not bang on about it.
	The final thing I want to mention—I apologise to erstwhile Select Committee colleagues, because I have frequently banged on about this in the past—is how teaching is such a high stakes profession and is such a high stakes commitment to make. When people do their PGCE or undergraduate degree, the assumption is that they will do the job for life. There are very few careers left in this country for which that is the case.
	We ask, “How can you tell a great teacher?” The answer is that we cannot: we cannot tell from a paper qualification, QTS, degree results or anything else, but we know it when we see it. That also goes for the individual considering teaching. We need a heavy emphasis in teacher training and accreditation on classroom performance. We also need more taster sessions, in which sixth-formers or undergraduates considering doing an undergraduate education degree or a PGCE get an opportunity to teach in a classroom and figure out if it is right for them.

Chris Ruane: I have now been an MP for 17 years. Before that, I was a teacher for
	15 years in a Catholic primary school with 550 children. For every one of those 15 years, I was on a professional development course, whether a diploma or a master’s—I never actually finished the master’s course—in Welsh, media, science, computing, religion and a variety of other courses. That did me a power of good: I loved it and the children benefited from it.
	We have to look at the pressures on children today. Many of the facts and figures that I will give have come from parliamentary answers to questions that I have tabled. Children today check their phone six times an hour or every 10 minutes. That is 600 times a day and over 200,000 times a year. My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) mentioned the positive aspects that the digital age has brought to teaching, but it has also had negative effects. Young people make constant comparisons through Facebook and Twitter. It has brought cyber-bullying. A young person watches 180,000 adverts by the time they are 18. Those adverts give mixed messages that confuse children. The fashion industry tells them to be size zero; the fast-food industry tells them to go large. The cigarette industry, the sugar industry and the fat industry are all targeting young people. That is having an effect on their bodies and on their minds. In America, 8% of children are physically addicted to computer games.
	In this country, 32.3% of 16 to 25-year-olds have one or more psychological condition. They have those conditions when they are doing their GCSEs, A-levels and degrees. Two per cent. of that age group have severe attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and 9% have mild to moderate ADHD. How can young people learn when there are such massive pressures on them? It does not get much better for 25 to 35-year-olds. Thirty per cent. of them have one or more psychological condition. Any training course that we provide for teachers needs to recognise that.
	A key element that could help young teachers and young pupils is mindfulness. Mindfulness is a way of breathing, relaxing, expressing gratitude, gaining balance and equilibrium, and gaining focus and attention, all of which could help people in their education. It also improves people’s social skills, develops their character and helps them to flourish as young individuals.
	I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for establishing the measurement of well-being in 2010. However, what is the point of having that measurement if we do not reflect on it and use it? We ought to concentrate not just on people’s academic side, but on their social side. Mindfulness can help with both.
	There have been 22 international studies on mindfulness. A British professor, Katherine Weare, has made a fantastic assessment of that evidence base. I ask Ministers to make their own assessment. Britain is ahead of the rest of Europe on mindfulness in education. Oxford, Cambridge, Bangor and Exeter are all centres of excellence. Professor Willem Kuyken, Professor Felicia Huppert, Professor Katherine Weare and Professor Mark Williams are the cutting-edge scientists who have proven the science behind mindfulness. They have proven its contribution to health to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. We now need to assess its contribution to education.
	Mindfulness is gaining traction around the world. Tiger Woods, the golfer, uses it. The executives of Google, Facebook and Twitter use it. The executives of
	Goldman Sachs and Transport for London use it. There are even 70 MPs and Lords in this Parliament who have had training in mindfulness in the past year.
	The health effects of mindfulness are scientifically proven and they can be proven in respect of education. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) for the positive attitude that she has shown on this matter in Adjournment debates. I ask the Secretary of State whether he, too, will look at the evidence and see whether mindfulness can be used in education.

John Pugh: This debate has the entirely laudable aim of raising the status of teachers. There has been a need to do that ever since George Bernard Shaw said “those who can’t, teach”, to which Woody Allen added that those who can’t teach, teach PE.
	I have to begin with a confession. I began teaching without any teaching qualifications. Having left university with a philosophy degree, I took a job with Liverpool city council as an estate manager. At that stage, Liverpool city council thought that it needed to employ graduates, but it was apparent after a week that neither the council nor I knew exactly what I was supposed to do. I saw an advertisement for Warwick Bolam secondary modern school in Bootle and within a week I was teaching 11 to 16-year-olds in what was a surprisingly good and well-run school. I had to learn quickly on the job because the tradition in Bootle was that the children felt obliged to play up and the teacher had to demonstrate that they could exert control. Failure to do so was a route to a nervous breakdown, resignation and a pretty unhappy life. The children actually preferred not to mess around, but the onus was on me to demonstrate that they could be prevented from doing so.
	After two quite happy years in the classroom, I was sent a letter by the Department of Education and Science, as it then was, saying that I was a qualified teacher. By that time I had moved on to Salesian high school, also in Bootle, which had become a comprehensive school, where I taught English, history and social studies. The last of those was a new subject introduced for embittered 15-year-olds who had been badly affected by the raising of the school leaving age and were disgruntled to be there, but it worked.
	It gets worse. I was then asked to take on A-level sociology, which I believe to be a much underrated and misunderstood discipline. Unbelievably, I helped to revise and set the extremely testing and highly theoretical A-level syllabus and exams for the Joint Matriculation Board. The students’ A-level results were pretty good—in line with, or better than, their grades in other subjects.
	After a happy and successful decade, I moved to a top independent school as head of religious studies, also teaching some Latin, neither of which subjects I had taught before. Only towards the end of my career did I teach philosophy at A-level, which was what my degree was in. In the meantime, I had done a diploma, an MEd and even, for no apparent reason, a course in teaching maths, which I found interesting rather than of any real use in the classroom.
	I therefore clearly cannot argue credibly that teacher training is either a sufficient or a necessary condition
	for being a good teacher. Indeed, I would probably argue that an effortless grasp of some subjects, such as that shown by brilliant mathematicians and the like, often equips people poorly to explain them to lesser mortals who are struggling to comprehend them. I believe that teacher training can help, inspire and provide a fund of ideas that the grind of day-to-day teaching might not. It cannot provide commitment and dedication, which are indispensible to successful teaching, but it can do much that is good.
	I refer hon. Members to the recent, surprisingly enlightened, CBI report on our education system, “First steps: a new approach for our schools”. It argues that good schools are those that are well led and have clear and challenging targets, but that have considerable flexibility in how they organise themselves and their staff, and that even an enlightened Secretary of State should back off. It seems to me that today’s teachers would welcome that. They have a prodigious, often unnecessary administrative load, and they are already assessed rigorously in every school worth its salt. To add a national scheme of revalidation for every teacher, as proposed by Labour, seems to me overload on top of overload and would not be welcomed by the profession. It is likely to annoy good professionals, to no real effect. Continuing professional development—we are up for that. However, Government teacher MOTs would simply produce clones, not charisma, if successful and further de-professionalisation and more of a tick-box culture if unsuccessful.

Michael Gove: I intervene just to say that my hon. Friend is making an outstanding case and I would love to hear more.

John Pugh: Well, I am going to close, because other Members want to speak, but the CBI states that the approach that we are taking towards education is rather like the conveyor belt approach abandoned by industry in the 1980s, and we simply have to get away from it. I will finish by quoting the CBI—I do not suppose I will do that many times in my political career. It stated that head teachers and teachers
	“are professionals—we should treat them as such”.

Alex Cunningham: Teachers are very special people. They have the future of our children in their hands, and those children need the best teachers that we can train, motivate and value. Although valuing them has been a theme today, we in Britain do not generally value the professional people we hand our children over to, and we should be ashamed of that. As politicians, we often fail to give our communities a lead by telling them why teachers should be valued and how crucial they are to our future.
	I am pleased that the Secretary of State—I am sure he will not intervene on me, and I would not accept the intervention—makes regular statements recognising that we have the best teachers ever. Most of them were trained, I would remind him, under the last Labour Government. His betrayal of them, however, is in assuming that almost anybody can march into a classroom and teach our children, which is wrong. I for one believe that teachers should be required to fulfil a proper training programme that leads to a professional qualification, before we stick them in front of a class on their own.
	We must ensure that our education system is designed to deliver the skills and knowledge that the young people of today will need to succeed tomorrow, and a crucial requirement of that is ensuring that their teachers are fully equipped and professionally qualified. Education is a dynamic field, but it cannot be greater than the sum of its parts unless teaching as a profession is equally ambitious, and continually strives to improve and provide the skills that our young people need and our employers demand.
	To deliver great teachers at all levels we must boost the status and enhance the standards of the teaching profession, attracting the very best—we have done a bit of that recently—the brightest, and the most able into the profession. The first step along that path is to ensure that our teachers are rigorously trained to the highest standards, and that the merits of the qualifications are properly recognised. Without such a step it is impossible to guarantee consistency or the quality of teaching, which in turn jeopardises the entire worth of education.
	That teachers must have a first-rate knowledge of the subject and curriculum in the areas they teach is beyond any reasonable argument, and for precisely that reason, teaching should remain a graduate profession. However, possession of subject knowledge is not, of itself, a satisfactory safeguard to ensure the highest possible standards. Making certain that all teachers undergo such training before entering the profession would put minimum standards in place to ensure not only that teachers are in possession of a solid knowledge of the subject matter, but that they understand the associated educational and teaching values that promote high standards of planning, monitoring, assessment and class management. Achieving qualified teacher status confirms that a formal set of skills, qualities, and professional standards, recognised as essential aspects of an effective educator, has been achieved.

Michael Gove: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alex Cunningham: I will not.
	I am in no doubt that all schools should impose the same rigorous criteria and requirements when appointing teaching staff. Only then can we be certain that young people across the board are afforded the same high standards of education. We currently have one of the best generations of teachers we have ever seen—an opinion backed by Ofsted—and there are numerous examples of great teachers in cities, towns and villages across the country. It is right that we celebrate their success.
	Dr Richard Spencer, who teaches at Bede sixth-form college in my constituency, was recently named as one of only 10 teachers in the Science Council’s list of 100 leading practising scientists, adding to the various other honours that recognise his contributions as an excellent teacher. It is important that we learn the lessons from such success stories, spreading best practice to every school, teacher and young person across the country, to drive progress and look at new ways to attract high-calibre candidates into the profession.
	Despite the Secretary of State acknowledging the importance of teacher prestige, and the Prime Minister citing research that reveals that teacher quality is the
	single most important factor in educational progress, I feel that focus has been lost. The coalition has ridden roughshod over teaching standards, downgrading the status of teaching by allowing unqualified teachers into classrooms on a permanent basis. Shockingly—special educational needs co-ordinators aside—there are no requirements for state-funded schools to employ qualified teachers. Although figures vary from school to school, I was appalled to discover that as many as three-quarters of teaching staff in some schools are unqualified.
	Unqualified teachers who have not undertaken the same initial teacher training as those achieving qualified teacher status may find themselves ill-equipped to cope in instances involving pupils with behavioural issues, for example, or special educational needs. Although they may be an expert in their subject specialism, that does not negate the need for the vital hands-on classroom experience required to meet properly the needs of those in their care.

Fiona Bruce: I want to highlight four issues that explain why I am against the Opposition motion. The first is that inspirational teachers come to the classroom through many routes, and sometimes the most unconventional backgrounds can be the most inspiring to pupils. The second is the importance of trusting and empowering heads to be the leaders they are appointed to be under the “use them or lose them” principle. Third is the importance of embracing working and learning in today’s global environment, and fourth is the critical need to bridge the worlds of education and industry if we are to compete successfully in that global race.
	I like to think that, like me, every child who goes through education has a truly inspirational teacher who has an influence on them for the rest of their life. For me, it was the lady who taught me German during my final years at school. There were four of us in our A-level class. She was a truly remarkable woman and I learned as much from her about character as about language. Being German, she could convey the language well, but what was truly remarkable about her—it is fitting to mention this this week as we remember the holocaust—was that, as we understood it, she and her father had helped Jewish children to escape from Germany to Britain during the second world war, and then had to leave the country. That gave her an understanding, which she conveyed through language and literature, of compassion and common humanity, of endurance and perseverance, of selflessness and humility, and of the right priorities for life. I have never forgotten. She taught me that no insignificant person has ever been born, that every individual has the capacity to make a remarkable difference, and that we should all strive to do so. When she arrived in this country, she had no relevant qualifications for teaching here. She had the life she had lived, which was worth far more than any paper certificate when she was teaching us.
	That brings me to my second point—giving heads the discretion to appoint the best staff for their school and allowing them the freedom to exercise leadership in the role entrusted to them. For almost 20 years, I was governor of a small inner-city independent faith school in one of the most deprived areas of Salford. It was started as a home school by an inspirational teacher,
	who found other parents asking her to take in their children. She took on a building—the Victorian building where the first ragged school in Manchester was housed. She taught those children and led many of them to become doctors, teachers and other professionals.
	When she needed a physics teacher, she found one from somewhere—someone who had retired or someone from business. She did similar with music teachers and teachers of many other subjects. She provided a special education in a small class environment. Most of the children would never have flourished had they gone to schools elsewhere in the city. They needed that individual help and support. Her dedication enthused and pervaded the whole school. To have inhibited her from exercising that initiative and from appointing staff of her choice would have been a travesty and a tragic waste of her leadership skills.
	Thirdly, we talk about working, living and competing in a global environment, and about preparing our young people for that. In that case, we must pay more than lip service. Increasingly, many of our school leavers travel abroad to get a business degree from Maastricht, or for a soccer scholarship at James Madison in the USA. A large number of those people will feel led to pass on the benefit of their training to younger children. Why should they not do so following the example of the qualified football coach employed by St Mary’s Church of England primary school at Dilwyn, who was appointed to teach PE at key stages 1 and 2; the professional actor appointed by Langley free school in Slough as a drama teacher; or the professional singer appointed there to teach music?

Chris Skidmore: That is the nub of the argument. Slapping on QTS as a compulsory requirement will put off many people from a variety of professions from entering teaching, which would be a tragedy.

Fiona Bruce: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and in that connection, I want to talk about the importance of strengthening the relationship of the educational environment we provide for young people with the world of work, which is critical if we are to give young people sufficient information for them to make the right career decisions. In order to do so, they need to make an early choice of subjects and to have inspirational teachers who understand the world of work and have experience of it.

Stephen McPartland: Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to reduce the gap between education and employment, and focus more on employability, so that we can reduce youth unemployment?

Fiona Bruce: That is exactly the point I am making. We must bridge that divide. Connecting children from the start of secondary school or even earlier with people who have been involved in the world of work, who can inform, encourage and inspire them, is what we need.
	Many teachers come from backgrounds that children would never otherwise have an opportunity to understand. On the bridging of the cultural divide between education and the industrial world, a former leader of an Asda sales team is teaching business studies at Priory community school in Weston-super-Mare and is head of upper school. He is bringing the world of work right into the classroom.
	Bridging education and industry is key. It would be wrong to inhibit schools that are intent on appointing enthusiastic teaching staff with knowledge of the world of work simply because they lack a piece of paper headed “QTS”.

Yasmin Qureshi: In 1997, when the Labour party came to power, one of its key mantras was “education, education, education”. In the years to 2010, the Labour party spent an enormous amount of money investing in education: on schools, textbooks and pay to raise teachers’ morale. The educational qualifications and standards in our schools improved tremendously. That is not the end of the story, however, and there is still more to be done. This debate on the training of teachers should be seen in the context of the continuous need to improve the education of our children.
	The Secretary of State started his speech by going through a literal interpretation of the Opposition motion. When I trained as a lawyer, we were told that judges have three approaches to interpreting legislation: the literal interpretation, which the Secretary of State was alluding to; the golden principle, where legislation is applied in a liberal way; and the mischief rule, which asks, “What is the mischief that the law intends to deal with?” The mischief we want to deal with in this debate is that we have teachers in our schools who are not qualified properly.
	I accept fully that there are some teachers without qualifications who are brilliant. I also accept that there are people with qualifications who may not be as good, or even competent. That does not mean, however, that we should not continue to strive for what I call the gold standard, which is providing training to our teachers. A young teacher, or someone who has just qualified or graduated, may be excellent in their subject matter and have a first class honours degree, but the reality is that in most of our junior and secondary schools they will be faced with classes of 25 to 30 children, perhaps with various levels of learning. To set their classes, to deal with the issue of how to control the classroom, to identify which child may need extra help, and to look at pastoral care and whether a child is being neglected at home—those are all part and parcel of a teacher’s work. If teachers are not qualified and have not received training on these issues, how will they be able to identify them? How will they automatically be aware of what to do? That is where the importance of having some kind of training—we could have a debate on how long training should last—is surely crucial. I am therefore surprised that Government Members, in particular, are deriding the idea that teachers should be trained.
	Members might think this is a bizarre example, but we would not let people operate on us if they were not fully qualified. A person might say, “Look, I’ve been in hospital for 10 years and guess what? I’ve doing all sorts of things. I didn’t pass my exam, but, because I know what I’m talking about, allow me to operate on you.” We would not accept that, so why are we willing to make that compromise with our children’s education? We accept that what we are trying to achieve will not stop the expert, the talented musician or the singer coming in and giving children lessons, but our provisions concern day-to-day teaching in a classroom, where the teacher will be there for a long time working with the children. The qualification needs to be good.
	Members talked ad nauseam about private schools not having that many qualified teachers, or that they can do without them. One has to understand that private schools have a different standing. Most of the kids come from middle class, well-educated families who look after them at home. Those children are going to do very well most of the time in any event, so comparing private sector schools with state schools is wrong.

Bill Esterson: The most successful education systems, from the far east to Scandinavia, are those where teaching has the highest status as a profession. South Korea recruits from its top 5% of graduates and Finland from the top 10%, and both have demanding initial teacher education programmes, completion of which is required for entry into the profession. So why not in this country?
	According to Ofsted, an
	“outstanding teacher generally has exceptionally strong subject knowledge and exceptionally good interactions with students and children, which will enable them to demonstrate their learning and build on their learning. They will challenge the youngster to extend their thinking to go way beyond the normal yes/no answer. They will be people who inspire, who develop a strong sense of what students can do and have no limits in terms of their expectations of students.”
	During its inquiry into teaching, the Education Select Committee took evidence from children who told us that the ability to make lessons engaging and innovative and to keep discipline in the classroom were priorities.
	In the 2007 study, “How the world’s best-performing school systems came out on top”, McKinsey found that
	“a high overall level of literacy and numeracy, strong interpersonal and communication skills, a willingness to learn, and the motivation to teach”
	were pre-identified characteristics used in successful education systems around the world for the recruitment of teachers. Those skills identified by our international competitors, Ofsted, McKinsey and our children need to be developed. To make the most of those skills, teachers need ongoing support and development, and that is the point of tonight’s motion.

Michael Gove: In that context, does the hon. Gentleman agree with the shadow Secretary of State and me that performance-related pay would be a way of supporting that continuous professional development?

Bill Esterson: When an Education Minister came before the Committee, they ruled out the introduction of performance-related pay.
	Evidence to the Select Committee shows that, especially for children who lack support at home, the difference that a good or outstanding teacher can make compared with a mediocre or poor one is startling. For all pupils, there is a GCSE grade difference of more than one for those taught by the best teachers compared with those taught by the weakest. Research from Harvard and Columbia universities suggests that children taught by the best are more likely to participate in further education, to attend better colleges, to earn higher salaries and to save more for retirement.
	We also have evidence from London Challenge of the difference that can be made by sustained investment in teaching and school leadership. The system of support and mentoring across London under the last Labour Government saw London’s schools move from below the national average to being the best in the country. The London Challenge included a significant emphasis on support and coaching for teachers and school leavers and led to a culture change across schools and the city—one in which many staff bought into the idea that their pupils would benefit if they worked on their own teaching performance.
	As well as good teachers, we need good leaders. In any organisation, it is the leadership that sets the tone for how the staff operate, and schools are no different. Having a good leader who can get the best out of everyone is vital to ensuring that teaching is of the highest standard. Good leaders in schools can support unsatisfactory teachers and help them to become good, and those same leaders can inspire good teachers to become outstanding.
	Teachers have told me that they should continue to work on their skills but that the profession should be driving the improvements, rather than having them imposed on it. Of course, that makes sense. If we help teachers to continue to develop throughout their careers, they are more likely to do so, which is why my hon. Friend is suggesting that we work with and be led by the profession. If teachers believe in what they are doing, they will be committed to their own development, and those same teachers told me that being qualified was a vital first step to ensuring the best standards in our schools. Subject knowledge is essential to the teaching of a subject, but it is not nearly enough.
	I told the House earlier what Ofsted had said, what McKinsey had found, and what children have said that they want. All the evidence points in the same direction: those who want to be teachers need to be trained properly. Their training must ensure that they understand how to teach and how to enable children to learn, and—as most teachers tell me—it should continue, as an element of their ongoing desire to do the best that they can for the benefit of our children.

Sharon Hodgson: We last discussed this issue during the week after the broadcast of the last episode of the series “Educating Yorkshire”, and we are now discussing it during the week after that documentary was rightly recognised at the National Television Awards. However, notwithstanding the widespread recognition that it has received, the Secretary of State is still unable or unwilling to recognise the key fact that anyone who watched it—and, indeed, anyone who has spent any amount of time in schools and in the company of good teachers—knows all too well: that being a teacher is not about teaching a subject, but about teaching the class of children in front of you, and about supporting the development, academic or otherwise, of each child in that class.
	Teaching is a test of pedagogy, not of memory. Deep knowledge is good, but it means nothing if a teacher cannot impart it in a meaningful way to all the children in the class, and for no group of children is that more
	important than those with special educational needs. During the three years for which I was a shadow Minister with responsibility for SEN, I engaged extensively with stakeholders large and small throughout the country, and the one observation that I heard time and again, from teachers as well as others, was that teachers are not given enough training in SEN as it is, during either their initial training or their continuing professional development. The fact that the Education Secretary thinks that someone who has had no training whatsoever is a suitable person to unlock learning for children with SEN is incomprehensible to me, and is surely contrary to all the best advice that he must have received.
	Given the severe cuts in central local authority education teams, which include specialist teachers and workers such as educational psychologists who can provide peripatetic support, it is more important than ever for classroom teachers to know how to teach the entire class in front of them, not just the high achievers. Figures from the Department for Education, published last week, show that the attainment gap between SEN and non-SEN children is widening at GCSE level. That applies particularly to the EBacc measure, which is completely inaccessible to many children with SEN. That is a subject for an entire debate on another occasion, but suffice it to say in the present debate that more than one in four young people without an identified special educational need achieved the EBacc last year, compared with fewer than one in 20 with SEN.
	The Government’s top priority must be to close the gap by improving outcomes, and the best way of doing that is to improve the quality of teaching rather than undermining it. The parents of children with SEN will rightly expect the people to whom they are asked to entrust the education of their children to have the capability and qualifications that will enable them to fulfil that role.

Nia Griffith: I speak as a former teacher and a former schools inspector, and as someone who returned to teaching. I spent many hours helping students who were engaged in teaching practice, newly qualified teachers, and those on the licensed teacher scheme. It is a real challenge to face, each day, six or seven groups of 30 pupils—as many as 210—some of whom do not want to be there, and some of whom are bound to want to cause trouble for a new teacher.
	Qualified teacher status is vital. First, if we do not require it, we may risk causing significant damage to some children’s education, and inspections may not reveal that damage until two years after a school has been set up, which may be much too late. Secondly, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), we can all continue to learn and to improve our teaching techniques. More important, however, qualified teacher status can be part of the continuing professional development that features time and time again throughout a teacher’s career. That is why the revalidation of teachers is so important. It should be not just a requirement, but a right. It is nothing new; we have had appraisals, and we have had thresholds. Those things are important because they relate to the status of teachers throughout their career.
	Fundamental to Labour’s plans for revalidation is consultation with the profession. Teachers, more than anyone, do not want to work alongside those who are sub-standard. They do not want to have to teach a class who have lost their motivation because the teacher who has just left the classroom was not up to standard. Therefore, we want to help those who are struggling, to help teachers to update their skills, but also to make it clear that updating skills is a requirement, not an optional extra. Most teachers in the profession would accept that.
	We want criterion-referenced, not norm-referenced, judging of teachers. Norm-referenced means that one has to fail 5%. Criterion-referenced means that, if they reach the standard, that is the standard that we want. If they are good teachers, they can continue. Criterion-referencing should be the fundamental basis for any form of revalidation.
	We also want to foster collaboration, not competition, within a school and among neighbouring schools. That was one of the successes of the London Challenge. We should avoid divisive policies where one school wants to outdo the school next door for marketing reasons and to do it down. If we are going to have genuine professional development among groups of schools, we need to ensure that we have not divisive, but collaborative policies.
	We also need to look carefully at what we are doing for supply teachers because often they have to cover for absent staff for quite long periods and it can be difficult to train a supply teacher on the job. Therefore, supply teachers also need to have good opportunities for development and access to training.
	Newly qualified teachers who have to do supply before they can get their QTS need special attention and special help, because moving from school to school to do that is no joke. Head teachers also need to have revalidation. Leadership is key and a weak head teacher can make a disaster of a school. We need the mechanisms to ensure that we do not wait for inspection to find that out, but find it out earlier, get the help in and ensure that the school is sorted.

Kevin Brennan: It has been a good debate, although bizarrely one in which we have not been graced by the presence of the Government Minister responsible for teaching. Why is the Schools Minister not here? Is it an authorised or unauthorised absence? Will he be fined, as many parents are being fined around the country, for playing truant? We know that he is deeply conflicted about whether teachers in taxpayer-funded schools should be qualified. Last time we discussed the issue, I likened him to Odo the Shape-Shifter from “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine”, but now having dissolved back into his bucket he seems to have re-emerged as the Invisible Man. The truth is that we have a part-time Schools Minister who is absent because he is performing his other job in the Cabinet Office of trying to hold the coalition together. He should be here in the House, answering for his policies in the Commons—even if he does not agree with his own policies, which when we last checked appeared to be his position.
	The Government once tried to convince us that they understood the importance of teaching—they even released a White Paper with that title—but everything that they
	have done in office has been about an ideological obsession with structures and an easy headline about numbers of academies and free schools. They have undermined and neglected the teaching profession, alienated hard-working qualified professional educators and sent the morale of the profession into the cellar.
	Last year, a survey conducted by YouGov found that 55% of teachers described their morale as “low” or “very low”. That figure had risen from 42% in just eight months. Sixty-nine per cent. said their morale had declined since the 2010 general election. Only 5% thought that the Government’s impact on the education system had been positive.
	It may be that, for some of the lunatic fringe that the Secretary of State has employed as special advisers, those figures are fine because in their view teachers are just Marxist troublemakers, but they could not be more wrong. When YouGov asked teachers their voting intentions at the last general election, 33% said they would vote Tory, 32% Labour, and 27% Lib Dem. Actually, teachers—I think I am the only member of either Front Bench in either House who used to be a school teacher—are a politically moderate, sometimes conservative group of swing voters. However, the Secretary of State has worked his magic on them with his advisers. That important group of middle-class swing voters now says in the latest poll on teacher voting intentions by YouGov that the support among teachers for the Conservatives is down from 33% to 16%, the support for Labour is up from 32% to 57%, and the Lib Dems—actually, if their Minister cannot be bothered to turn up, I cannot be bothered to read out the figure. Let us just say that they are now neck and neck with the Greens and behind UKIP.
	Teacher morale matters. Teachers’ professional status matters. The OECD has said in its PISA reports that schools in countries with high teacher morale
	“tend to achieve better results”.
	Teacher morale matters, not just politically but, more importantly, for the education of our country’s children. So why does the Secretary of State not understand that, by undermining the profession with his “anyone can teach” dogma, he is undermining standards in exactly the same way as they were undermined in Sweden?

Graham Stuart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Kevin Brennan: Not at the moment.
	We all remember the Secretary of State’s infatuation with the Swedish model. He even wrote about it in The Independent newspaper, under the headline “Michael Gove: We need a Swedish education system”. He was saying that we needed free schools—eventually to be run for profit, presumably, as in Sweden—and unqualified, low-paid teachers. His praise for Sweden was effusive. He went on to say that
	“what has worked in Sweden can work here.”
	We do not hear much about Sweden from him now. I think I can say, without fear of being accused by the statistics authority of abusing the PISA statistics—unlike the Secretary of State, who was rapped on the knuckles for doing so when talking about the PISA statistics for this country—that Sweden has plummeted down the PISA tables after pursuing the very reform programme
	that the Secretary of State is now adopting in this country, including the use of unqualified teachers. Perhaps the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), might like to look at that evidence with his Committee. Sweden is now as invisible in the Secretary of State’s speeches and articles as the Schools Minister is in this debate on teaching.
	It would be helpful if the Government were willing to tell us what qualifications the teachers have in the schools that are causing concern. I have asked him about the Al-Madinah free school in Derby. On 16 October last year, in response to a parliamentary question about the qualifications held by teachers in free schools, I was told:
	“Data on each qualification held by each teacher is not collected.”—[Official Report, 16 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 746W.]
	I thought that that could not be right, so on 18 November 2013 I asked whether the Secretary of State would
	“publish in anonymised form the qualifications held by each member of the teaching staff at the Al-Madinah Free School”
	at the beginning of last September’s term. I was told:
	“It would be inappropriate to publish any details until the Secretary of State for Education has concluded the next steps in this case.”—[Official Report, 18 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 729W.]
	On 6 January this year, when those next steps had been taken, I asked again for details of the qualifications. I was told that it would be “inappropriate” to publish any details of staff qualifications. On 14 January, I asked why it would be inappropriate, and received an answer simply repeating that it would be inappropriate to answer the question.
	Lloyd George was once driving around north Wales and he stopped his car to ask a Welsh farmer for directions. He said, “Where am I?”, and the farmer replied, “You’re in your car.” That is exactly the method used by the Department for Education to answer parliamentary questions. The answers are short, accurate and tell us absolutely nothing that we did not already know. The Secretary of State said today that he was going to release that information, and I know that he will do so because he is a man of his word. I look forward to receiving that information tomorrow.
	A YouGov poll has shown that 89% of parents do not want their child to attend a school whose teachers do not have professional teaching qualifications. Before the Secretary of State goes on again about unqualified teachers in the private sector, he might want to reflect on the fact that the latest Ofsted report shows that 13% of schools in the selective fee-paying sector were judged “inadequate”.
	As our motion says, no school system can surpass the quality of its teachers. Before I finish, I want to turn briefly to the issue of the South Leeds academy. The Secretary of State has kindly passed to me the letter that he received yesterday, which he presumably solicited ahead of this debate. In the letter, the academy accepts that it placed the advert to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) has referred, but says that it was
	“placed in error by a new and inexperienced clerical assistant”.
	We accept that explanation. What it also says in that letter, which the Secretary of State did not highlight, is that the academy trust involved says that the School Partnership Trust Academies
	“always seeks to employ teachers with qualified teaching status.”
	It agrees with us, not with the Secretary of State. We should be employing teachers with qualified teacher status. He is wrong; we are right, and the SPTA agrees with us on that issue.

Michael Gove: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Kevin Brennan: I do not have the time unless the Secretary of State wants to eat into the time of his Minister.

Michael Gove: I absolutely do.

Kevin Brennan: The Secretary of State is eating into the time of his Minister.

Michael Gove: Will the hon. Gentleman now withdraw the allegation against the South Leeds academy made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt)?

Kevin Brennan: Everything that my hon. Friend said was entirely accurate and has been confirmed by the letter. As I have said, we completely accept the explanation given in the letter. We accept everything that my hon. Friend has said, and the Secretary of State should accept that his support for unqualified teachers in taxpayer-funded schools is not supported by the School Partnership Trust Academies because it is wrong.
	Given that the Secretary of State has given me some extra time, I will conclude my speech. As our motion says, no school system can surpass the quality of its teachers. That is why we need qualified quality professionals in our classrooms and better continuing professional development with revalidation to allow teachers to excel in their vocations. Yes, teaching is a vocation, as anyone who has watched programmes such as “Educating Yorkshire” or “Tough Young Teachers” or who has taught at any time in a school will know. That is why, despite the undermining of the teaching profession by the man who should be its greatest champion and advocate—the Education Secretary—teachers continue to put in hours long beyond their contractual obligations to help educate our children and build the future of this country. However, they cannot do that for ever without support and while being undermined, which is why we should strengthen, not weaken, their professional status, care about the time bomb of low morale, which this Secretary of State has armed, and pass this motion. Teachers and parents want a new direction and new leadership in education.

Elizabeth Truss: As always, we have had an amusing speech from the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), but it reflects an alternative universe, mainly informed by briefings from the National Union of Teachers.
	Under this Government, we have seen a huge improvement in the standing and attractiveness of the teaching profession, which is absolutely where it should be. New people are being attracted to teaching in droves. We now have one of the youngest teaching work forces in the developed world, with the exception of Indonesia and Brazil. Three-quarters of new teachers entering the profession either have a first or a 2:1 degree, which is the highest since records began. Teach First is now the largest recruiter of graduates in our country, and the programme
	has quadrupled. We are also extending it to more areas of the country and into early years. We all agree that teaching quality is the No.1 factor in education, and we are determined to raise standards, which is why we have improved the skills test, making it harder to pass. We have limited the number of re-sits that teachers can take. We are paying bursaries and scholarships up to a value of £25,000 in subjects such as maths, physics and chemistry. Last year, we recruited a record number of physics trainees.
	What the Opposition are saying about the freedom to hire non-QTS teachers is a complete red herring. There are actually fewer teachers without QTS now than there were under Labour. If it was such a big issue for Labour MPs, why did they not do anything about it in their 13 years of government? There is also little difference between academies, where 96% of teachers are QTS, and maintained schools, where 97% of teachers are QTS. As the Chairman of the Education Committee said, there is simply no evidence that that is a problem in our system. We recognise the importance of empowering head teachers to enable innovation to take place. We do not believe in central diktat and box-ticking, which is what we had under the previous Government. That is why we are reforming teacher pay and conditions and giving schools and head teachers the ability to reward good performance with performance-related pay, although there does not seem to be much agreement on the Opposition Benches about whether that is a good idea.
	We can see that schools are using their freedom to do things differently. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright), the Sir Isaac Newton free school, which offers maths and science for 16 to 18-year-olds, has hired a psychology lecturer from the university of East Anglia to teach seminars that introduce students to complex concepts and research. That is only possible because they can hire that person even though they do not have QTS. Many schools are using subject expertise to find the extra people that they need.
	I agreed with the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) when he said that there had been too much centralisation and too much of the “invented in Whitehall” mentality. That is why we have put in place a school-led system and why we have had 50 teachers over in Shanghai learning about CPD, peer research and open-door policies from their colleagues in the teaching profession. That is why we are interested in the idea of the royal college of teaching. It must be independent and we would consider funding a good proposition, but the important thing is that it must be school-led and head teachers must be empowered to make the decisions.
	Under the previous Government, we had an approach that decided that Whitehall and the Secretary of State knew best. We had centrally driven initiatives, such as the national strategies, that included chunking and told teachers how they should teach. Rather than empowering teachers, they deskilled them. As the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary has said, that led to shocking levels of English and Maths among jobseekers.
	In PISA 2012, England showed no improvement in maths or reading during Labour’s period in office. Adult skills among the young people who are leaving school now are better than those for the generation who are retiring. The only good idea the Opposition had in
	government—academies giving head teachers more freedom—is the idea that they are keenest to deny when it comes to the crunch. The success of these schools shows the importance of freedom within a strong framework of accountability. We have already seen huge improvements since 2010, and 250,000 students are no longer in underperforming schools. We have seen a 60% increase in students taking rigorous English baccalaureate GCSEs. I know that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central supports them and I welcome a new pronouncement on that.
	The Opposition should not be seeking to undermine those freedoms that deliver better outcomes for our young people. I urge Members to vote for the amendment, which continues the programme we have developed to allow schools and head teachers to decide how best to organise and run their schools. The whole issue of QTS is a red herring. There were more unqualified teachers in schools under Labour than there are now. In fact, the number of teachers without QTS in academies has halved since 2010.
	The Opposition’s evidence is baseless and they need to think again about their policies, which will simply involve implementing more box ticking across the country.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2), That the original words stand part of the Question.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 229, Noes 300.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 301, Noes 227.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	The Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
	Resolved,
	That this House notes that the Coalition Government is committed to raising the quality and status of teaching; acknowledges the significant progress made since 2010 in achieving those aims; recognises that the part of the Coalition led by the Deputy Prime Minister believes that all state-funded schools should employ teachers with or working towards Qualified Teacher Status; also recognises that the part of the Coalition led by the Prime Minister believes that free schools and academies should retain the freedom to hire the best teachers regardless of whether they hold Qualified Teacher Status; and registers the fact that the number of teachers without Qualified Teacher Status has fallen under this Government.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Commons

That the draft Commons (Town and Village Greens) (Trigger and Terminating Events) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 9 December 2013, be approved.—(Mark Lancaster.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Council Tax

That the draft Localism Act 2011 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 7 January, be approved.—(Mark Lancaster.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Income Tax

That the draft Enactment of Extra-Statutory Concessions Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 6 January, be approved.—(Mark Lancaster.)
	Question agreed to.

SOLAR PV PANELS (PLANNING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mark Lancaster.)

Brooks Newmark: As you are aware, Mr Speaker, I presented a petition to Parliament on 12 November 2013 on behalf of my constituents in the parishes of Foxearth and Liston. The petition, signed by more than 700 residents of Belchamp St Paul, Belchamp Otten, Foxearth, Liston and Pentlow villages was in opposition to a proposed solar panel farm. The proposal is for up to 300 acres of 8-foot high solar panels on prime agricultural land—the highest grade in all of Essex—for a minimum of 25 years, thereby degrading the land and, most importantly, spoiling the surrounding landscape. That point is especially important to my constituents, as the proposed site is on the edge of an area of outstanding natural beauty and what is known as Constable country.
	Before I get into the substance of my argument, I wish to point out that I have no objection in principle to solar panels and believe that they play an important role in our country’s future energy mix. Indeed, there is another proposal for a solar farm in my constituency that I support. It is for a 50-acre solar farm on a disused airfield near Gosfield. The Gosfield solar farm would be on a brownfield site and has the support of Hedingham and Gosfield parish councils and the wider community. I mention that alternative proposal to draw the Minister’s attention to my view of what is an appropriate site and what is an inappropriate one.

Robert Buckland: May I echo my hon. Friend’s support for the development of photovoltaic facilities on brownfield sites? In my constituency, at the old RAF Wroughton site, the largest PV installation in Britain has just received approval from the local planning authority. It enjoys support from the local parish council and local residents, and we believe it will make a meaningful difference to local energy generation and be an important part of renewable energy capacity in this country.

Brooks Newmark: I thank my hon. Friend. That is exactly the sort of site on which we should support the building of solar panels.
	One of the planned solar panel farms in my constituency has the support of the local residents and the local parish councils and is on a brownfield site. The other has no support from local residents or the local parish councils and is on prime arable land adjacent to an area of outstanding natural beauty.

Glyn Davies: I generally support my hon. Friend’s view on alternative sites and I, too, support solar farms in the right place. Does he agree that when considering a solar farm we must take into account the power lines leading to that farm, and the impact they have on the environment?

Brooks Newmark: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I fought a long, hard campaign in that part of north Essex to ensure that any power lines proposed were buried underground as they impinge on the environment I am seeking to protect.
	Let me return to the proposal for a 300-acre solar panel farm in Foxearth and Liston as a case study for the Minister when he reflects on the planning regime for solar panels in rural locations—the subject of my Adjournment debate. A letter from the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) states :
	“Inappropriately sited solar PV especially in the countryside is something that I take extremely seriously and am determined to crackdown on…support for solar PV should ensure proposals are appropriately sited, given proper weight to environmental considerations such as landscape and visual impact, heritage and local amenity, and provide opportunity for local communities to influence decisions that affect them.”
	Given that excellent guidance from the Minister, given the quality of land under consideration—it is grade 2 agricultural land and protected as such under the national planning policy framework—and bearing in mind the almost unanimous opposition to acres and acres of solar panels blighting some of the most beautiful countryside, not just in Essex but in the country, the siting of this solar panel farm, unlike the one at Gosfield, is wholly inappropriate.
	Unfortunately, notwithstanding the extremely helpful guidance from the DECC Minister, planning officers at Braintree district council take a very different line. Indeed, they say that the Minister’s letter is not worth the paper it is written on. They state that unless Department for Communities and Local Government planning regulations are changed specifically from those indicated in planning practice guidance for renewable and low-carbon energy, dated July 2013, to exclude grades 1 to 3A prime agricultural land, permission is likely to be given to the planned solar farms under current regulations.
	In fact, the planning officer is minded to give planning permission for the initial 40-acre solar farm on the basis that the developer will abide by section 27 of the planning practice guidance for renewable and low-carbon energy, which states that
	“particular factors a local authority will need to consider include: encouraging the effective use of previously developed land, that it allows for continued agricultural use and/or encourages biodiversity improvements around arrays”—
	I assume that arrays are solar panels. The planning officer said that if the biodiversity condition is met, he is likely to give planning permission for the initial 40-acre plot. To my mind, that is absurd. It is absurd because he says that local objections are of little relevance and that the visual impact has little bearing on his decision, even though it abuts an area of outstanding natural beauty. It is absurd because as long as the proposal ticks his biodiversity box, such as sheep grazing among the solar panels, it is likely to go ahead.
	Imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, a Constable painting of some of the most beautiful Essex countryside, with sheep gently grazing amid 300 acres of 8-foot high metal solar panels. That goes beyond the imagination of even the most avant-garde surrealist and Dadaist painter. I strongly believe that the planning officer should take the other points from the DECC Minister’s letter into account, which the planning officer says has no basis in the guidelines.
	Braintree district council tells me that it will, under current regulation, approve the application, given that it is for a temporary installation. However, given the
	damage that will be done to the area, I do not believe 25 years is temporary. Does the Minister honestly believe we should be building on some of the best food production land in Essex? Me thinks not.
	The provisions of the national planning policy framework requiring “a demonstration of necessity” in selecting high-quality arable land over low-quality land are too often ignored by local planning authorities. Planning authorities seem too ready to compromise on their policies to accommodate such applications, and they remain behind the curve in taking Government guidance on board. That is the exact problem in my constituency, where planning applications have been made for solar panels to be placed on hundreds of acres of prime agricultural land. The planning framework needs to demonstrate more clearly the need to spare at least grade 2 agricultural land from being covered with solar panels. I believe the guidance should direct local planning authorities to consider roof tops and brownfield sites such as the Gosfield proposal for the installation of solar panels.
	Given the DECC Minister’s guidance in his letter of 14 October, more needs to be done in the legislation, not just the guidelines, to impress upon local planning authorities the importance of not building on prime agricultural land. The DECC Minister has made it abundantly clear that agricultural land must not be used for solar farms, and that such installations should be directed towards brownfield sites, and commercial and industrial roof spaces, but there is so far little evidence that his words are getting through. A clear directive to local planning authorities in that regard by the Minister is obviously overdue, and a reassessment of the incentives and sanctions should be considered. Planning authorities must be given clear instructions as to their legal obligations in that regard, such that they comply with the law.
	In addition, there should be an environmental impact assessment, which for some reason is not a condition for siting solar panels in rural areas, although it would be a requirement if one of the cottages in the same area wanted to build a garage. I do not understand why 8-foot high solar panels on between 40 acres to 300 acres should not be subjected to an environmental impact assessment, especially in cases such as the one I have described, in which the environmental impact through blight is high. Nevertheless, local planning authorities often elect not to call for an environmental impact assessment. It would appear that, because the operation of generating electricity by such means is clean, does not appreciably degrade the site on which panels are situated and is “of only local importance”, no environmental impact assessment is considered necessary. In reality, such installations fundamentally alter the character and visual environment of the location in which they are situated.
	Overall, Government directives and letters from the DECC Minister appear to be having little effect in countering the headlong drive on the part of developers and landowners to get into the solar farm business by taking over food producing land, especially high-quality agricultural land, suggesting that the incentives may have been incorrectly set, or that the available sanctions are not being applied with sufficient rigour. I would like the Minister to consider changing the legislation to ensure that local planning authorities can consider the
	quality of land, the visual impact on the countryside and the views of local people before granting permission for solar panel farms to be built.
	I have three specific questions for the Minister. First, can he confirm that the Government will issue updated planning practice guidance that explicitly states whether agricultural land classified as being the “best and most versatile”, meaning grades 1, 2 and 3a, is suitable for use as a solar farm? Secondly, does the Minister know of any plans to update the environmental impact assessment regulations in respect of solar farms, and specifically the criteria and thresholds for the purposes of the definition of schedule 2 development, meaning the thresholds at which the regulations suggest that an environmental statement is likely to be required in support of a planning application?
	Thirdly, following publication by the Government of the “Solar PV Strategy Part 1” in October 2013, will the Minister give an update on the scheduled date of publication for the widely anticipated solar PV strategy that has previously been scheduled for publication in spring 2014? Will the advice in that document replace the current planning practice guidance?
	I would like to end by thanking Braintree district councillors Julian Swift and Jo Beavis; the planning officers at Braintree district council; Nigel Harley; Clive Waite of the upper Stour valley renewable energy joint committee; and the residents of Foxearth, Liston, Pentlow, Belchamp St Paul and Belchamp Otten for their valuable input to my speech. I thank the Minister for taking the time to listen to the concerns of my constituents and I look forward to his response.

Nicholas Boles: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate on such an important subject for his constituents. It is a subject that he has raised with me in writing and in person, and now, rightly and properly, on the Floor of the House.
	I hope I will be able to reassure my hon. Friend that there are already guidelines in place and policies in the national planning policy framework that are sufficient to support the kinds of decisions he seeks. I hope he will also understand that I cannot refer to, or make a judgment on, any particular application under consideration by any planning authority.
	The policies in the national planning policy framework are clear that there is no excuse for putting solar farms in the wrong places. The framework is clear that applications for renewable energy developments, such as solar farms, should be approved only if the impact, including the impact on the landscape—the visual and the cumulative impact—is or can be made acceptable. That is a very high test. It should be approved only if the impact can be made acceptable. Where significant development is necessary on agricultural land, the national planning policy framework is equally clear that local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality in preference to that of a higher quality. Where land is designated at a relatively high grade it should not be preferred for the siting of such developments.
	In addition, the framework is clear that planning should take account of the different roles and character of different areas. It should protect areas with a landscape
	designation. It should recognise the character and beauty of the countryside and support the rural communities within it. It is very important, given the particular countryside he was talking about, that areas of outstanding natural beauty have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The framework is clear that great weight should be given to conserving them. I therefore encourage my hon. Friend to draw the attention of planning officers in his council to those elements of the framework, the clarity and the strength with which those policies are phrased, and encourage them to believe that they can assist them in their decisions.

Brooks Newmark: I am listening very carefully to what my hon. Friend is saying, and many of his points reflect the excellent advice given by the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) in his letter to me in October. The reality, however, is that when speaking to Braintree district councillors—notwithstanding that it is the highest grade agricultural land, grade 2, in Essex—they say that as long as a biodiversity requirement is met, they are still minded, because, unfortunately, of the current regulations, to give planning permission for at least the first 40 acres. To me and to many of my constituents, that is unacceptable.

Nicholas Boles: I can reassure my hon. Friend that this is planning policy: the national planning policy framework is the framework of national planning policy. Every planning decision by every planning authority in the land must abide by the policies in the framework. I do not care what he has been advised by others; I am the planning Minister, and I am advising him that this is the policy that the Government have put through the House, and we intend it to be applied in every planning decision by every planning authority in the land.
	Nevertheless, because we shared some of my hon. Friend’s concerns about how these policies were being applied, we issued further planning practice guidance on renewable and low-carbon energy. To ensure that these decisions reflected the environmental balance expected by the framework and that the views of local people were listened to, we published guidance last summer that made some things very clear. We reiterated that the need for renewable energy did not automatically override environmental protections and local communities’ planning concerns. The guidance made it clear that the deployment of large-scale farms could have a negative impact on the rural environment, particularly in undulating landscapes, and set out a number of factors that a local council would need to consider before making a determination.
	We expect local authorities to encourage the effective use of previously developed land, and if a proposal involves greenfield land, the guidance clearly states that it should allow for continued agricultural use, but only if it has already met all the other environmental and landscape policy criteria that are set out in the framework and which are reiterated, underlined and expanded on in the new planning guidance. I and the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), believe that current policy and guidance gives every planning authority in the land the basis on which to take fully into account the landscape and agricultural quality of land.

Brooks Newmark: I appreciate everything that my hon. Friend is saying, but unfortunately money talks, and this has become big business. Many planning officers are nervous, as are local councillors, that if they reject an application and it is appealed, local taxpayers might have to foot the bill. They tend to take a much more cautious—even prudent, dare I say it—approach towards planning and to err on the side of caution by saying, “Actually, we are minded to give permission”, because they do not want to risk an appeal by a wealthy business man or company.

Nicholas Boles: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has asked that question, because it is important that authorities across the land understand that when they make a decision that has policy support, in the national planning policy framework, and guidance support, in planning guidance, and if it is appealed, they have every right, if they are successful in resisting that appeal, to ask for their costs to be covered. They should feel confident in their decisions, where those decisions follow the policy that I have set out and which I believe is crystal clear. I should also add that it would be a brave planning officer or inspector who dismissed a letter from a Minister of State for Energy and Climate Change in the terms my hon. Friend suggested he had been advised they had to do.
	I encourage my hon. Friend, if he is concerned about a particular decision, to familiarise himself with the criteria for call-in and recovery where an application goes to appeal. If he is concerned that a particular application raises issues of national policy importance—and are not, therefore, just of local importance—and in
	some other way meets the criteria for call-in, which are published in a written ministerial statement, he can write to the Secretary of State and request that the decision be called in for ministerial decision. That is open to him at any point. If he decides not to do that, and were the local authority to refuse an application, and were it then appealed, again he could write to the Secretary of State and request that the decision be recovered, so that it can be made by the Secretary of State, not a planning inspector. Those two opportunities are open to him.
	My hon. Friend will, I am sure, be aware that there has recently been a recovery of a decision on a substantial solar farm, partly because this is a relatively new area of policy. We have been trying to strike the right balance, which is why we issued the new planning guidance, and we are keen for cases to reflect both the policy in the framework and that new guidance. My hon. Friend should not feel timid or shy about availing himself of the opportunities offered to him by both the call-in and the recovery policies.
	I hope that what I have said will go some way towards reassuring my hon. Friend—and, perhaps equally important, his constituents—that they have not been abandoned, and that there is plenty of policy support for the respecting, valuing and protection of the beautiful Constable landscape that my hon. Friend described so lyrically.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.